Inconvenient truth in Britain – scepticism on the rise – only 26% believe climate change to be man-made

Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’, BBC poll shows

The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.

The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

BBC graphic (Image: BBC)

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”.

The findings are based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February.

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.

BBC graphic (Image: BBC)

“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.

“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change – and becoming more so,” he added.

“More people are now doubters than firm believers.”

Read the complete story at the BBC

See the report in PDF format:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Inconvenient truth in Britain – scepticism on the rise – only 26% believe climate change to be man-made

  1. tallbloke says:

    The cold wind of change blowing up the Khyber Pass of the establishment.

  2. Leon Brozyna says:

    Trust is such a precarious thing.

    If the science hadn’t been so corrupted just to push an agenda and the studies had been allowed to show doubts and the possibility of natural climate variation, the number might be the same as they are now — only, instead of falling, they might be rising in support of AGW. It would just have taken longer to convince people.

    Now the trust has been betrayed.

    Now, skeptics can say that there’s some AGW, but it’s too small to amount to much and natural climate variability is more powerful. And with open studies, they can be convinced. Of course, the true believers will never allow themselves to believe anything but that AGW is the be all and end all of the climate.

    Now let’s wave bye-bye to those true believers as they ride off into the sunset…

  3. omnologos says:

    Fear ye not, oh believers…Prophet Richard (Black) says it’s the fault of an inconstant public swayed by cold weather!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/cold_view_of_rising_scepticism.html

    Onwards and forwards, hoping in a warm summer!!

  4. BernieL says:

    And the Guardian is still going strong.

    Here is an editorial explaining the change of heart in the environmental reporting of the last week.
    Climate science: Truth and tribalism

    And here is an opinion article in the main news section:

    Is climate change the new faith?

    (note the euphemism ‘agnostic’ for sceptic – its like the way you yanks calling the ‘toilet’ a ‘bathroom’ – like, its not only smelly to be a sceptical in science these days but in journalism as well)

  5. Richard Tyndall says:

    This is generally good news. However strangely perhaps I am sorry to see that the numbers of people thinking warming is not happening has increased. One of the crimes of those promoting the AGW hypothesis is that they have managed to persuade people that the natural state of the climate is stability and that change is therefore the result of man. Most of us arguing against AGW know that this is not the case and one of the main planks of our argument is that the climate is continually changing as a result of natural causes.

    If people are becoming convinced that we are not seeing warming – natural warming as a result of the move out of the last glacial period – then it actually makes the task of combating the AGW fraud all the harder. I am very pleased that people are more sceptical of man’s contribution but it would be far better if they were more aware of just how lucky we have been as a species to live in a period of relative climate stability and how quickly that might, quite naturally, change.

  6. MarcH says:

    Scepticism on the rise but not at the (Australian) ABC. For more uncritical reporting of the coming doom follow this link…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812229.htm?section=justin

  7. Mike Spilligan says:

    I’m a realist on climate change, and a sceptic on opinion polls, particularly regarding how the “sample population” was distributed. I know not one adult person who thinks that climate change is largely man-made.
    What may be interesting is that in 11/09 only 4% had “no opinion” (presumably) and that has now reduced to a nominal 1%; which might indicate that it’s a matter of great interest which is all to the good.

  8. PhilW says:

    OT- Electric Charge Can Change Freezing Point of Water.
    Could this apply on a global scale?
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/electric-charge-can-change-the-freezing-point-of-water/#more-17792

  9. MarcH says:

    Pew Environment Report reported on by Australian ABC available here for scrutiny. It seems it got the standard “mates” review we are accustomed to.

    http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=57161

  10. vibenna says:

    This was why I was on about the UAH data showing strong warming. Whatever the cause, it is clearly occurring over the last 30 years. So that 25% is denying some fairly clear empirical facts.

  11. JohnH says:

    I predict another ‘Barbacue Summer’ and another MET office red face.

  12. Andy Scrase says:

    Will David Bellamy be back at the BBC soon then?

  13. Colin Porter says:

    The majority of people in the UK are still not aware of the issues, even though it has recently had a very limited airing in the national press and on television. It is surprising therefore that there has been even this modest amount of change in perceptions. Without the recent revelations, the publishers of the survey would have been looking forward to a trend the other way. The amount of propaganda leading up to Copenhagen was enormous, so people could have been forgiven for believing that there was some truth in it. Even now it is still business as usual, with the government still pumping out their misinformation adverts. Apparently, I will save the planet if I just drive 5 miles less per week.

  14. AlanG says:

    It’s very easy to get the answer you want from a survey by tilting the question. The latest survey asking ‘Do you think climate change is taking place?’ is a pretty useless question without asking WHY. Even I would be compelled to answer yes because the climate is always changing. The November survey is much more illuminating. Only 26% believe ‘Climate change is happening and is now established as largely man made’.

    The wheels are coming off the UK governments energy policies as well. Yesterday’s FT had a number of articles saying the numbers don’t add up.

  15. richard says:

    interesting that the Beeb have gone with the headline figure (25% don’t believe global warning is occurring) rather than the more explosive number; only 26% think that GW is happening but not as a result of human behaviour!

    That the UK government planning major changes to the economy or tax system based on something that nearly 74% of the population don’t believe in is frankly absurd.

  16. Greg Cavanagh says:

    Bit of an unfair question that, is climate change happening. Every answer should be yes. It should have been is Global Warming happening, or better yet is Globam Warming as expressed by Mr Gore happening.

  17. O. Weinzierl says:

    The first graph is very misleading, because it sums up poll data for the wrong question. The question is not wether there is global warming, but if man got anything to do with it. So it gives a false positive impression that the vast majority believes in man-made flobal warming.

  18. BrianMcL says:

    I’d be surprised if there isn’t a bit of a recovery in AGW belief once the memory of what’s been one of the worst winters ever start to fade.

    Given that by the law of averages we’re probably also due a decent summer then more people might start if not to believe again at least stop questioning whether it’s all just a big scam.

    If so, we can then expect to see reports of unprecedented increases in belief in AGW and that something must be done.

    Still, there has to be some long term damage resulting from the various -gates and as the IPCC’s and others many failings get more exposure hopefully even our politicians will start to listen.

  19. Kate says:

    The global warming agenda has suffered a loss of nearly half its believers in the last three months. If my job depended on taxpayer-funded grants and budgets, I would be worried, too.

    To illustrate how unpopular the whole man-made global warming propaganda has become, this extract is from today’s Express:

    MET OFFICE BLASTED FOR ‘BIASED SUPPORT OF CLIMATE THEORY’
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156564/Met-Office-blasted-for-biased-support-of-climate-theory-

    The Met Office was last night accused of bring too heavily biased in support of arguments
    February 6, 2010
    Mark Reynolds

    THE Met Office was last night accused of being too heavily biased in support of arguments suggesting global warming is man-made. Critics said the taxpayer- funded body had no right to enter such a politically charged arena in the wake of an on-going row embroiling climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia.

    A leaked email scandal at the university, which suggested that data which did not support theories of man-made global warming had deliberately been withheld, prompted the Met Office to issue a statement in support of the global warming camp. It also called on scientists to sign up to a petition in support of the climate change science.

    Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed the Met Office was rattled. Dr Peiser said: “They have come out on one side and are paying the price. They have been far too heavily biased and have not been objective.”

    Earlier this week Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, urged the public to believe the science supporting the theory that man is behind global warming. She stressed that carbon dioxide levels were rising and that the gas’s impact on temperature had been known about since the 19th century…

    …There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested. It showed that 25% of those questioned did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since November.

  20. SandyInDerby says:

    This is is completely OT but will surely knock a few million peoples faith in computer programmes.

    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8500074.stm

    Delete if you wish.

  21. Kacynski says:

    I think what you’ll see now is the steady ratcheting down of the rhetoric over climate change by the more savvy members of the warmist community who’ve realised that Doomsday scenarios just don’t play well in the public arena.

    The real nutters, Like Prince “I talk to the plants” Charles, will still keep on with the end of the world stuff, but watch the more astute politicians gradually dial it down and eventually let it fade into the background as the world fails to go into catastrophe.

  22. I would like to see the poll results by age group as I am sure that most of the firm believers are those who have been through our “school indoctrination system” in the last 20 years.

    I don’t know anyone under forty who has swallowed the guff put about by the so called scientists.

  23. UK Sceptic says:

    I guess the British public aren’t as stupid as the Beeboids want to think we are. Will this sudden injection of cold reality shake the Beeb and our stupid politicians free of the AGW madness? I won’t hold my breath…

  24. Tenuc says:

    I’m amazed that this poll is showing showing such a high number (25%) of people who still believe in M-MGW ! I would like to have seen the exact questions asked by the people doing the survey – it is easy to get the answer you want to see depending on how things are phrased.

    From my own experience of talking about this with relative, friends, acquaintances and the customers at my local pub over the last couple of months , only a handful of the rabid warmistas are left.

    The remaining 90% think the whole thing is a joke, with the failed MSM ‘alarmist’ predictions, the last few cold years and finally the Met Office’s rubbish forecasts being given as the main reason for doubt. There has also been a breakdown of trust in the authority of government in the UK, due to vast amounts of tax being squandered on saving the banks and evidence that the majority of politicians have been lining their pockets at tax payers expense through expenses fraud.

    With a general election coming up in a few months time, and the polls showing the possibility of a hung parliament, the politics of CAGW could rapidly change.

    I’m really enjoying watching those greedy barstewards squirm :-)

  25. Khwarizmi says:

    September 3, 2009
    HELEN LIDDELL:
    (former British high commissioner to Australia)
    “It is a very difficult (question) to answer briefly and I have to say it’s one of the most interesting experiences I’ve had in Australia is to hear this challenge to the basic science of climate change. We had that debate 10, 15 years ago, and not just in Britain but in other parts of the world.”
    abc QandA

    But 7 days later:

    September 10, 2009
    UK climate scepticism more common
    The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a survey.
    BBC

    Then the new British high commissioner arrived in Australia:

    November 14, 2009
    Baroness Valerie Amos, has expressed surprise that Australians are still debating whether humans cause climate change and says other nations have long since ”moved on”.
    The Age

    It looks like the British are moving on again.

  26. Ralph says:

    A typical weasel-worded question from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, to increase the number of ‘yes’ answers. They asked:

    “”Do you think Global Warming is taking place””

    Well, even many WUWTers would answer yes to that one. Over what time-scale, chum? And what was causing it, mate?

    The un-biased question should have been:

    “”Do you think Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place””

    On second thoughts, this is the British general public. So how about:

    “”Do you think Man-made Global Warming is taking place””

    .

  27. LearDog says:

    Anthony and Steven et al having a collosal and positive impact for science. So proud of you guys.

  28. Jack Hughes says:

    The AGWers have Climate Munchhausen’s Syndrome – they want the climate to be ‘unwell’ to get attention for themselves.

  29. Lucy says:

    Sorry to go off topic and at the risk of sounding rather stupid but what is the % of the earth’s surface that is populated by man.

  30. Ralph says:

    .

    Just in case there is any confusion here. The biased question in the first graph is from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

    The more balanced questions in the second graph are from The Times newspaper.

    .

  31. Mark says:

    Anyone here in the 25% percent who think the climate isn’t changing?

    Also, it doesn’t have to be ‘doubters’ and ‘believers’. Just because you don’t ‘believe’ doesn’t mean you doubt. It might mean you don’t know.

  32. KeithGuy says:

    When you consider the constant exposure that the British public have had to alarmist propaganda, it is very reassuring to think that only 26% of those polled believe that “Climate change is happening and is now established as largely man-made”.

    I wonder if they live in East Anglia?

  33. David Wells says:

    When Roger Harrabin asked for comment from WUWT I sent him an email reminding him of his past comments including “climate change deniers”, extinction of Polar Bears, commercial Arctic expeditions (failed), sceptics being funded by Big Oil when America fund public research to the tune of $4bn and John Christy saying that even if America built 1000 nuclear reactors all functioning by 2020 it would only make 1/70th of a degree difference. Rogers reply was “some commentators have managed to avoid insult, you are now on the filter”. What else would you expect from an organisation that has become either by want, persuasion or demand a full time propaganda outlet for those who believe or want us to believe for whatever purpose that there is a proven connection between a rise in Co2 and warming and that climate change – whatever that general term describes – only happened during the last 157 years and anything that occurred prior to that date is inadmissable as evidence because it doesnt suit their argument. The question remains, why does anything want to whip up all of this hysteria, dont we have enough problems to cope with that really do exist and are not figments of some twerps obsessive desire for power and influence Al Gore for example.

    David Wells

  34. vukcevic says:

    Recorded UK temperatures have oscillated, during last 400 years with a period of about 50+ years (synchronized with the NAO?). While in the long term winters’ temps have risen (0.4C/century), summers’ have hardly moved (0.05C/century).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
    This graph also shows that UK is currently entering the ‘next 50 year’ cooling period.
    If so the government would do well to start concerning itself with reliability of its energy supplies rather than the nebulous CO2 saga. If CO2 indeed contributes to the warming, perhaps its time to build more coal burning power stations, increasing UK energy capacity and of course more CO2 the better.
    More graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  35. Jeef says:

    @ Jack Hughes (01:40:37) :

    “The AGWers have Climate Munchhausen’s Syndrome”

    Surely you meant Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy…

  36. kwik says:

    The BBC shows by that question that they are the “PRAVDA” of the UK.

    Same as NRK in Norway. “Pravda” of Norway.

  37. DirkH says:

    O/T They should try to re-engage the public by telling more positive stories about the benefits of a carbon-free economy.

  38. Thomas says:

    I don’t think you’ve done a good job of selling how amazingly good those figures are for the sceptics.

    73% of people in the UK think that either ‘climate change’ is not happening (sic, presumably they mean warming) or that it may be happening due to reasons other than man. Only 26% TWENTY SIX, now believe that AGW is now established as man-made.

    Only a quarter of people believe the propaganda that the science is settled. That is about the number of people who would be inclined to believe so for other political reasons (I would say around 20-25% of the UK population are left-wing, pro-statists). Their propaganda has utterly failed, in a country where the government has been pushing this stuff like no other. Game over.

  39. Bryan says:

    People get excitedly by the Himalayan Glaciers and Amazon forest boobs, by the IPCC.
    A much bigger clanger is shown in the diagram ipcc_fig1-2.
    In the diagram EM radiation is shown in and about the surface of the Earth.
    In an effort to balance the energy from the Suns Radiative Balance with the Earth.
    What they don’t seem to comprehend is that EM radiation has no fixed direction ,it can be reflected and refracted.
    Going by their diagram the Sun provides 342 w/m2 to earths surface.
    the same square metre provides 168+324 down and 350+40 up.
    Remember that the photons do not worry about direction this means that the available energy just above the surface is 900w/m2 .
    The energy moving around at the surface of the Earth is almost three times the input energy from the Sun.
    Put another way a double sided solar panel raised say 2 metres above the ground could make use of this plentiful free energy.
    Would it work? – well according to the IPCC, “the Physics is incontrovertible thousands of peer reviewed scientists…..zzzzz”

  40. Smokey says:

    Lucy (01:42:25):

    “…what is the % of the earth’s surface that is populated by man.”

    I’ve been to the Isle of Man. It was OK, but I would have much preferred going to the Isle of Women.

    I assume you meant the area of the planet covered by humans of all three sexes [Mrs Smokey is a Trisexual; she'll try anything]. I don”t have the answer to that ready, but I do have some perspective on the false alarm that human activity is able to cause climate change:

    Asumptions:

    6.7 billion humans in the world

    Average mass of a human is approx 65kg (Wikipedia says that the mean for the UK and USA is around 75kg; I assume most of the world is lighter than us). The mean density of a person is 1g/cm3

    So humans mass totals 6.7 billion people x 65kg/person = 4.355×10^11 kg

    At 1g/cm3, this mass takes up 4.355×10^11 litres = 4.355×10^8 cubic meters

    Now we plug this value into the formula linking the volume of a sphere with its radius:

    Volume = 4/3 * radius^3

    Therefore:

    Radius^3 = Volume / ( (4/3) *pi)

    Radius^3 = 4.355×10^8 / (1.3333333 x π [pi])

    Radius^3 = 1.0397×10^8

    Radius = 470.21 meters

    Diameter = 940.43 meters

    Therefore, all of humanity’s 6.7 billion bodies would fit into a sphere less than 1 km wide.

    The rest of the world can be occupied by polar bears, and class is dismissed. Have a nice weekend.

  41. John Hooper says:

    Here’s another. You might like to vote:

    http://polldaddy.com/p/2437952

  42. Will Hudson says:

    Our sole AGW proponent in the pub has just arrived back from a month in sunny Egypt with the astonishing news that “man-made global warming is proved. All the cold weather just proves that the actions following Kyoto have already had the effect of cooling the planet!”

    We were all lost for an adequate answer.

  43. Patrick Davis says:

    “Lucy (01:42:25) :

    Sorry to go off topic and at the risk of sounding rather stupid but what is the % of the earth’s surface that is populated by man.”

    7/10th’s of the surface is water, so that’s a bit limiting. Large blobs of land are uninhabitalbe without special equipment, such as Antarctica. But then every single person on Earth could stand on the Isle of Wight, bit tight, but it could be done.

    Insects account for more biomass on Earth than all other speicies combined.

  44. Mark says:

    Thomas

    “73% of people in the UK think that either ‘climate change’ is not happening (sic, presumably they mean warming) or that it may be happening due to reasons other than man. Only 26% TWENTY SIX, now believe that AGW is now established as man-made.”

    Erm, no. Those possibilities were covered by other statements. 25% think it isn’t happening , presumably at all. Well, either that or they’re smart enough to understand the global AGW conspiracy but not smart enough to understand a 4 statement poll.

  45. Alex Cull says:

    “Action is urgently needed,” Professor Watson warned. “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” (from the BBC online article.)

    Bob Watson, Ed Miliband, Lord Smith and all the others whose careers are predicated on the reality of AGW certainly “need” the public to go along with the charade in order to help keep them (and their ambitions) afloat. On the other hand, increasing numbers of us are deciding we do not “need” to change our habits (euphemism for embracing poverty) or move to a low carbon economy either (shorthand for embracing Third World conditions.) All the terrible urgency and the “need” for action has been channelled in one direction only, to enrich and empower those to whom the public fear of climate change has been manna from heaven – up until now.

    So I understand the uncomfortable thought processes behind your sentences perfectly, my dear Watson. It’s elementary, you might say.

  46. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    If they wanted to base articles on surveys and polls they should go the whole hog. The numbers will reveal that more people believe in ghosts and UFOs than the neo-pagan religion of catastrophic manmade global warming.

  47. TerryS says:

    OT: But not by much!

    Sitting here with my 88 year old father having a coffee and a “debate” has just been on on Sky News about climategate. Dad’s response was:

    [snip - sorry but that's a little too hostile for this blog]

    It’s just as well he has mellowed in his old age.

  48. Peter Miller says:

    Weird!

    A few days the Indian government were telling Pachi the facts of life. Now apparently he is a hero again.

    A classic oriental stitch up over ‘face’ I suspect.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8499702.stm

  49. RichieP says:

    @Richard Tyndall
    “If people are becoming convinced that we are not seeing warming – natural warming as a result of the move out of the last glacial period – then it actually makes the task of combating the AGW fraud all the harder. I am very pleased that people are more sceptical of man’s contribution but it would be far better if they were more aware of just how lucky we have been as a species to live in a period of relative climate stability and how quickly that might, quite naturally, change.”

    I very much agree with you on this Richard. What strikes me most about populist warmist attitudes is that there seems to be this stunningly ignorant notion that climate does *not change unless the hand of man makes it do so. Instead of showing schoolkids Gore’s propaganda films, schools should actually be teaching their pupils that climate *is change and, as well, demonstrating that argument both through science teaching and also history teaching.
    In Britain, this simply does not happen and, probably, might well result in those teaching in this way being silenced or sacked. Our public education system has become an agent of personal and political control. It no longer teaches our children to question but directs them to belief and acceptance, not scepticism. That is one of the most central problems we now face in achieving wider public understanding of the actual position. It is not surprising that Citizen Charles Windsor pours scorn on the Enlightenment. He and other warmists are the outriders for a new medievalism of dogma and control. We can only pray that they’re a forlorn hope, soon to be broken on the solid shieldwall of reason.

    “Hold the line! Stay with me! If you find yourself riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for you are in natural variability…. “

  50. Chris Wright says:

    The question “Do you think global warming is taking place?” is very unclear. Like most people here, I believe that some amount of warming did occur in the last century. But I also believe that there has been no global warming over the last six or seven years, and that in fact there may have been a small amount of cooling over that period. So how do I answer that question?

    Strictly speaking, my answer would have to be ‘no’, because I don’t believe global warming is happening right now. But that answer would be interpreted as a denial of all global warming, which would be nonsense.

    Still, the results of the poll, which is consistent with others both in the US and the UK, is very encouraging. It means that on all the important climate change questions the sceptics are the main stream, and it is the Gores, Hansens and Manns of this world who are in the minority.

    Hopefully next time the poll will make a distinction between 20th century warming and what’s happening right now.
    Chris

  51. Articles on dodgy computer code

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release

    In The Guardian and many more in the same vain are the real reason people are at last waking up to the con of AGW. The BBC just cannot believe the house of cards they have spent 15 years helping to build is falling down around them.

  52. PaulH from Scotland says:

    I’m wondering how all this will unfold politically in the UK.

    All the major parties (Labour, Conservatives, Libeberal Democrats – and the SNP here in Scotland) have pinned their colours firmly to the AGW mast.

    This would appear to be a golden opportunity for UKIP (AGW skeptics and fiercely anti-European Union) to make hay. Lord Monckton recently joined UKIP.

    In the meantime, I wonder how many UK-based skeptics, who are following the US Cap & Trade and Australian ETS stories, are aware that the UK is implementing it’s very own emissions trading programme in April this year? http://bit.ly/a82KPb

  53. RichieP says:

    @Smokey (02:29:58) :
    “Lucy (01:42:25):
    “…what is the % of the earth’s surface that is populated by man.”

    I’ve been to the Isle of Man. It was OK, but I would have much preferred going to the Isle of Women.
    I assume you meant the area of the planet covered by humans of all three sexes ”

    In Old English the word man, like homo in Latin, simply means person, member of the human race, the species. Gender attributes can then be attached to it, like weapon-man (a free male who must bear arms) or wife-man (the root of the word “woman”). PC was not a common phenomenon in the past when the language was evolving. So using “man” like this is perfectly ok. :)

  54. Peter Miller says:

    As a Brit and a sceptic scientist, I am proud to report that I am responsible for recently making at least 20 people understand they were been conned over AGW.

    When debating with a typical AGW supporter, the first response is usually one along the lines of: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my made is made up.”

    I have found the best way of getting through the above defence is to ask: “Well OK, but just answer this one question – how much carbon dioxide do you think there is in the atmosphere?”

    I have not yet had one even remotely correct answer (0.038%), usually you need to push to get any answer at all, but it is always between 1 and 10%. When you give the right answer – especially in terms of one part in 2,600 – the shutters come down and, as often as not, the response is along the lines of: “That’s far too small to have any appreciable impact.”

    At which point the previous AGW supporter now has his or her mind open to hearing the facts, i.e. the truth.

    I have not tried this with any card carrying greenpeacers, but I suspect they might be a tougher nut to crack – kind of like the SS fanatics of 70 years ago.

  55. marchesarosa says:

    I think a large chunk of the UK population has always been sceptical. Climategate and all the subsequent debacles have effectively given us permission to express our doubts in no uncertain terms.

    The UK is absolutely riddled with political correctness. Even I have buttoned my lip to a certain extent in the company of “believers”. One doesn’t wish to cause ill-feeling or embarrassing controversy. Now, at last, the gloves are off!

  56. Peter Plail says:

    We are used to seeing comments from the Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Mail and Express, but I do not recall the Sun being mentioned. For the benefit of the non-Brits, the Sun is aimed at, shall we say, the less cerebral reader, but it is a major opinion former in UK politics (they have claimed in the past to have won elections by supporting specific political parties of left and right).

    There is no data on how many Sun readers took part in the poll that is covered by this thread, but I think it would be instructive to see what there stance is on climate change, so have a look at this and bear in mind that it is today’s date in their header.

    The page title is “The Sun helps you to stop Climate Change with our Green Week special”
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/

    Note how they highlight “topical” issues:
    “We explain UK heatwave guide” with a link to a June 2009 article
    “British weather going to be HOT!!” similarly linked to June 2009

    I despair.

  57. richard says:

    Settled science doesn’t sell papers.

    Headlines like ‘apocalypse soon, we’re all going to die from AIDS/swine flu/avian flu/SARS/global warning/MMR’ are generally followed by ‘where’s this apocalypse then?’ followed by ‘who’s to blame for spreading all this apocalypse nonsense?’

  58. Scott Fox says:

    C’mon WUWT, you guys showed the wrong graph! A better representation of your case is the graph showing that a mere 26% think that climate change has been conclusively established as anthropogenic.

  59. JohnH says:

    One of the comments from the Daily Express article referenced above.

    Do as I say not as I do.

    Just before xmas I was driving back from Finland and stopped for the night in Copenhagen. Outside of my hotel was a fleet of 6 mercedes s500′s with the engines left running, I checked in, showered and changed then went out for dinner. When I came back about 3 hours later the same cars were still there engines still running. Whose were they? Delegates from the climate change conference……and they want us to be greener

  60. DirkH says:

    “Bryan (02:28:49) :
    [...]
    The energy moving around at the surface of the Earth is almost three times the input energy from the Sun.
    Put another way a double sided solar panel raised say 2 metres above the ground could make use of this plentiful free energy.”

    Solar panels work only with visible light. For LWIR radiation you need microscale antennaes, which is feasible using nanotubes. Unfortunately the frequencies are in the terahertz range and as yet we don’t have electronics that can collect the energy from the resulting electric oscillations – you’d want to collect the output of many billion antennaes here, and the key problem is the absurdly high frequency. Not much research is going on but with a few technological breakthroughs it would be possible.

  61. Robert of Ottawa says:

    vibenna (23:50:41) :

    This was why I was on about the UAH data showing strong warming. Whatever the cause, it is clearly occurring over the last 30 years. So that 25% is denying some fairly clear empirical facts.

    Vibenna, We won’t know if the satellite data is showing strong anything until we have a thousand years of satellite observation.

  62. Peter Plail says:

    vukcevic (02:05:04) :
    Thanks for showing that information. I can’t help thinking that the difference between the summer and winter trends might be man made.

    Comparing my lifestyle now with that of my youth in the 1950s, we run all our buildings at much warmer levels now and this extra heat must have a two-fold effect on temperatures. Firstly the generation of power used for heating is inefficient, and must produce large quantities of waste heat, secondly the extra heating in homes eventually leaks out even from well insulated properties.

    This is evidenced by the UHI effect, but the cumulative effects must also have a background effect on overall temperatures, and intuitively I would have expected this effect to increase over time.

    Does this make sense to anyone else?

  63. ict558 says:

    @ Thomas (02:27:47) :

    Well, you might also say that 25% have an IQ > 110.

    Or, 25% have an IQ under 90.

    Why must it be political?

  64. Well, the BBC will mangle it, but however you look at it 74% of those polled do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change, up from 59% last November. The vast majority are sceptical, and AGW is a minority opinion. Now that would have been a better headline for the BBC, wouldn’t it?

    My daughter (finishing a degree in psychology) is verbally abused for admitting that she is sceptical on climate change. One of the subjects she could have done a project on in her final year is the psychology of climate change scepticism. It is being taught at British universities that climate change scepticism is some form of psychological abnormality, and delusional paranoia. For a popular take on it (completely mad, IMHO) by the US-born psychoanalist Coline Covington now practising in the UK, former editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology and former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council (formerly British Confederation of Psychotherapists), see here

    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57532,news-comment,news-politics,what-the-deniers-of-climate-change-are-really-denying

    In this she says “…another denier of the evidence for climate change, has ironically called for better scientific evidence: evidence that she hopes will counter the findings that we have now and demonstrate that the restrictions being urged on our use of energy are merely a means of political control rather than based on any reality of damage limitation…This is a mentality resembling the narcissism of small children who want to hold onto their illusion of omnipotence and control over mother. Any threat to their position is experienced as a narcissistic wound that is tolerable only to the extent that their attachment to mother is relatively secure…One way to control anxiety is to deny reality. Reality itself becomes the enemy that challenges this narcissistic hegemony and must be attacked accordingly. The need to maintain control then turns into paranoia. While scientists are being accused of conspiring to distort the truth in order to wrest control over others, this is precisely what the deniers of climate change are doing.”

    So, we sceptical scientists who are calling for better evidence, openness and truthful dealing in science are being branded as delusional narcissists. What a state our scientific world is in!

    Covington’s warped views are obviously finding fertile ground with influential sectors of British society, not just within science. Her own practice describes her clients:

    “Coline’s clients come from different sectors of the business world, particularly the financial services…Coline worked for many years as a consultant to local authority agencies throughout the UK and with the Metropolitan Police…Her work…has given her a special insight into the problems facing many CEOs and senior executives today.”

  65. MikeA says:

    Bit OT – but this link to a report by the OFGEN warning of dire times ahead for energy in the UK should help people to concentrate their minds on the real facts. Christopher Booker et al have been warning everyone in the UK for years about this. http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/PressRel/Documents1/Ofgem%20-%20Discovery%20phase%20II%20Draft%20v15.pdf What’s the outlook for the US looking like?

  66. Roger Knights says:

    Peter Miller (03:29:40) :

    Weird!

    A few days the Indian government were telling Pachi the facts of life. Now apparently he is a hero again.

    That’s so the gov’t. won’t be a suspect when Choo Choo turns up missing from the Orient Express.

  67. Johnny Canuck says:

    Copenhagen Conference — COP15
    Where I live, COP stands for Claims Of the Paranormal.
    Yes. It fits.

  68. Paul from MK UK says:

    Is the BBC deliberately avoiding the really important political question:
    Do you think CO2 taxes can change climate?

  69. Sam the Skeptic says:

    She stressed that carbon dioxide levels were rising and that the gas’s impact on temperature had been known about since the 19th century
    I suppose this comment of Slingo’s refers to Arrhenius. So I also presume that either she does not know that he backtracked fairly rapidly in which case I’m not sure what right she has to call herself a scientist or she does know in which case she has no right, as a government employee, to be misleading her paymaster (ie me!) about scientific facts about which I am entitled to rely on her expertise.
    Either way I doubt that she deserves to hold down a senior position in a (supposedly) scientific establishment.

  70. Roger Knights says:

    From the Guardian’s sidebar:

    3 Feb 2010
    Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues | Fred Pearce
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email

    3 Feb 2010
    As the Iraq inquiry and ‘glaciergate’ show, the truth is slippery | Michael White
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-climategate-row

    1 Feb 2010
    Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

    3 Dec 2009
    Climate science: Inconvenient truths
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/03/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

  71. A Lovell says:

    Lucy (01:42:25)

    There was a very comprehensive breakdown on this very subject on a WUWT thread a few weeks ago. I wanted to keep it for reference, but when I went back to look for it I couldn’t find it anywhere.

    I’ve meant to request whoever submitted the comment to repeat it, but didn’t get round to it. If you are out there, PLEASE submit again. It was hugely informative and I meant to memorise the figures to quote at the over population freaks.

    I think I remember the final upshot was that only around 2% of actual land was occupied by humans, but I would love to see it again.

  72. dave ward says:

    Peter Miller (03:58:12) : Here’s another analogy you could try (which I found at Joanne Nova’s site)

    “Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.

    Let’s go for a walk along it.

    The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

    The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

    That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

    The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

    9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

    A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

    The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

    97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

    Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.

    That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.”

    And referring back to the second graph, given the pretty unpleasant weather that most of us have experienced recently, how did they find 15% of people who don’t think that ANY climate change is happening??

  73. toyotawhizguy says:

    People are slowly waking up to the fact that 90% of the forces driving the AGW issue is political in nature instead of science. It has been said that politics is the world’s second oldest profession. Politicians have been increasingly obtaining the consent of the governed by manipulation and deception, as well as occasionally donning the jackboots. Since it is normal for politicians to spin the facts and lie, the currently increasing skepticism by the public is healthy. Only the deeply religious adherents to the church of AGW remain unswayed by the plethora of evidence pointing to the AGW hoax.

  74. toyotawhizguy says:

    @ict558 (04:44:22) :

    “Well, you might also say that 25% have an IQ > 110.

    Or, 25% have an IQ under 90.

    Why must it be political?”

    Another way of stating it is 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. :-)

  75. AndrewWH says:

    @ Peter Miller (03:58:12) :

    A good way of demonstrating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when at work is by taking a full five-ream box of A4 paper (as used in the photocopier) and asking people to pick how many sheets make up the CO2 content. Tell them they can open a ream to get close to the quantity. I find most people grab at least one ream of 500 sheets. They are a little shocked when hand them one sheet.

  76. wayne says:

    Patrick Davis (02:40:16) said “Insects account for more biomass on Earth than all other speicies combined.”

    Ever wonder if single cell and tiny multi-cell organism species in soil and ocean account for even more mass than insects? They can be be found in most any drop of natural water or gram of soil.

  77. Peter Miller says:

    Anthony

    Having read ScientistForTruth’s comment, I think it is now time for someone like you – a world recognised sceptic with a large and growing following – to draw up a 10 to 12 point Sceptics’ Charter.

    We need to make everyone realise just how misleading and plain wrong the rants of the alarmists are in regards to the science and rationale behind the sceptics’ cause.

    Purely as the start of a thought provoking exercise, I suggest it might consider including points along these lines:

    We recognise climate change as the norm, not the unusual, as clearly shown in the geological records.

    We recognise global temperatures have risen by around 0.7 degrees C over the past century. However, no scientific evidence has yet demonstrated that this is not just a continuation of normal climatic cycles.

    We abhor all bad science which seeks to scare, not inform.

    We abhor the unscientific manipulation and deliberate destruction of historic temperature data.

  78. Dave UK says:

    When one considers that the BBC has been pushing the Agenda bending AGW scam 24/7 for the last 10 years, these results must be a complete shock to them.

  79. Kate says:

    ScientistForTruth (04:59:39) :

    This is nothing new. The Soviet Union locked up thousands of people in psychiatric institutions and experimented on them because they questioned the communist party and its dogmas. Decades of doing this had no effect at all, and did not delay the destruction of the Soviet Union by so much as one day.

  80. Jeff Id says:

    Thank god, critical reasoning is winning over belief. It’s got to go a bit further before it gets where it should be but it’s nice to see.

  81. Henry chance says:

    Kev Trenberth, 2002:

    “We’ll never see winter as we once knew it again”

    People have a way of remembering when they are lied to.

  82. David L. Hagen says:

    The time frame is critically important for a poll to have any meaning.

    “Global warming” has been occurring for 11,500 years, since the last ice age.
    “Global warming” has NOT been occurring since 2001. See Lucia’s analysis at The Blackboard.

    Equally important is the distinction of whether the “warming” is predominantly “anthropogenic” or natural.
    Without those key distinctions, such polls have little “scientific” value.

  83. Baa Humbug says:

    Re: Lucy (Feb 6 01:42),

    A good question (disregard smokey lol)

    I’ll give you the definitive answer, according to the trusted WWF.

    For more than a decade, the WWF and several other conservation organizations have performed complicated calculations to determine individual footprints on the planet. Their numbers show that each American uses 9.4ha of the globe, each European 4.7ha, and those in low-income countries just 1ha. Adding it all up, we collectively use 17.5 billion hectares.

    Unfortunately, there are only 13.4billion hectares available.

    Don’t you hate it when trisexuals invade your space? :)

  84. toyotawhizguy says:

    @Mrs Smallprint (01:00:49) :

    “I would like to see the poll results by age group as I am sure that most of the firm believers are those who have been through our “school indoctrination system” in the last 20 years.

    I don’t know anyone under forty who has swallowed the guff put about by the so called scientists.”

    I think you meant to say “I don’t know anyone OVER forty…”.

    I do. Actually, there are large numbers of AGW believers in all age groups, from pre-teens to senior citizens. An associate of mine (over age 50) is an MSE Ph.D, and has swallowed the AGW hoax completely. Why? He regularly reads many of the peer reviewed articles concerning climate in numerous scientific journals, and views Mann as the Messiah of Climatology. Articles by AGW skeptics are virtually non-existent in these journals. Unfortunately, it has never occurred to him that the so called scientific articles that are pro-AGW are laced with an underlying unscientific bias.

  85. Ralph says:

    Interesting debate on the BBC blog, here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/cold_view_of_rising_scepticism.html

    A rising tide of dissent. Previously, all these comments would have been deleted by the mods.

    .

  86. Wilson Flood says:

    Khwarizmi

    Amused to see you quoting Helen Liddell (accent on fist syllable of surname, she doesn’t like that). She was an aide to Robert Maxwell which says it all and was known in Scotland as “Stalin’s grannie”. She would start a fight in an empty house. She knows nothing about AGW and I can assure all that there was no debate in the UK about it 15 years ago. The Aussies are away ahead of the Brits (see the article in The Scotsman by Sir Alan Peacock re Lord Moncton in Oz) in debating this. Yet to start here.

    I wish to apologise to all Australians. First we send you Liddell and then Amos. The wonder is that you are not yet a republic.

  87. Steve Goddard says:

    Henry chance,

    I can’t find any other references to your Trenberth quote on Google.

    Given the drought in Colorado in 2002 it wouldn’t be surprising that he felt that way, but I don’t see any documentation that he ever said anything like that.

  88. 3x2 says:

    What I found quite un-nerving, watching a BBC news item earlier in the week, was that not only do they still not question some of the core “evidence” of CAGW but that they now flat out refuse to take any blame for the consequences of their support.

    Let me explain … The article in question covered ..

    1) Many people may not be able to pay their spiralling energy bills in the near future.

    2) The UK could be subject to frequent power outages in the near future.

    The un-nerving part …

    At no point did the BBC link either event to ..

    1) Thieves creating a 100 Billion a year “fantasy carbon market” (without a single ppm reduction in CO2) thereby sending prices through the roof.

    OR..

    2) EU rules mandating the closure of core UK power stations and the greenshirts preventing the building of replacements (until of course panic sets in with the politicos (see Gordon “Flat Earth” Brown going Nuke!) ).

    The BBC has long been a key player in promoting the benefits of higher fuel prices and no fossil fuels for generation. As the fantasy falls apart and reality sets in …. do I get the feeling that they are now trying to suggest that they played no part in this current UK CF? (this is a strong warning to the US – you are next)

    I know the belief is that the “public” has the memory of a Goldfish, and that may be true, but I will be doing my very best to remind those fish that the BBC has been core in creating this situation and that the national razor awaits the Bong Clutching Co-operative.

    Long past time that the BBC joined the free market. After all … can’t watch TV if there is no electricity .. can ya?

  89. jazznick says:

    The article was a summary of the BBC TV News at 6pm item and as you can see
    both the pollster and Prof Bob Watson (DEFRA) were able to pass comment.

    There was no skeptic viewpoint in this package. I’m sure Piers Corbyn or
    Benny Peiser or Lord Lawson would have been available if asked.

    For all the good it will do I have reported the bias of the item to the BBC
    on-line complaints department – don’t hold your breath.

  90. Chris H says:

    A rare breed BBC skeptic,

  91. royfomr says:

    Jeef says:
    February 6, 2010 at 2:10 am
    @ Jack Hughes (01:40:37) :

    “The AGWers have Climate Munchhausen’s Syndrome”

    Surely you meant Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy…

    You owe me a new keyboard!

  92. FergalR says:

    OT, Australia signs an agreement to supply China with 30 million tonnes of black death rocks a year for 20 years. Shouldn’t Rudd be leaving that in the ground?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8501777.stm

  93. paullm says:

    First thing this morning …a couple inches of new winter snow in Cleveland….checke cable: DC a lot more…go to WUWT…a crazy BBC poll and a disappointing post by Anthony? – phew, blow off some steam and go shovel.

    The ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ interchanging and/or mixed meaning drives me nuts and here it is on WUWT. Very disappointing.

    My answers:
    Global Warming (GW)? – unanswerable as no time frame posed;
    Climate Change (CC)/Man Made (MM) – agree with the trend;
    CC/not proven MM – agree with the trend;
    CC/Enviro MM – unanswerable, some enviro positions are reasonable;
    CC not happening – disagree with the trend – alarming.

    As a result of the lack of differentiation between (A)GW and CC what this post shows is that the public will be probably never have a real chance to be adequately informed or questioned on climate matters and therefore the politicians will have a larger opportunity to screw with them. And on it goes….shoveling and other chores….I see tomorrow will be clear.

    My best to Anthony & WUWT and hopes that everyone can work more to help clear up the debates.

  94. vukcevic says:

    Peter Plail (04:30:04) :
    “vukcevic (02:05:04) :
    Thanks for showing that information. I can’t help thinking that the difference between the summer and winter trends might be man made.”

    I am not sure I would agree with that, on the other hand I am not climatologist, and I look at these matters from purely technical point of view.
    The bottom half of the graph:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
    now shows de-trended temp changes (upward trend removed from the data). It is obvious that both summer and winter temperatures show similar natural oscillations (sometime in phase and sometime out of phase – that is another story) plus linear (but different) upward trends, which I think are due to a slow recovery from the Little Ice Age.
    This well corresponds with plenty of the anecdotal evidence of the very cold winters (frozen Thames etc), but very little about unusually cool summers.
    More temps graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  95. Chris H says:

    Can we not simply call them `catastrophists`?

  96. John Galt says:

    I was going to point out that 59% don’t believe global warming is happening and it’s manmade, but the results of the “Which of These Statements is Closest to your View” poll add up to over 100%.

    OT: A local community college where I sometimes teach showed “Not Evil, Just Wrong” on Thursday.

    I think the title of this film shows a real difference between the true believers and the skeptics. How many of the true believers believe skeptics are evil? The true believers seem to believe that if you don’t believe what they believe, then you must be evil or stupid. It never occurs to them that there are legitimate reasons for scepticism.

  97. Andrew30 says:

    3×2 (07:38:53)

    Re: “1) Thieves creating a 100 Billion a year “fantasy carbon market” (without a single ppm reduction in CO2) thereby sending prices through the roof.”

    I think that you may have missed something about position of the BBC on AGW.

    From: http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

    “The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”

    Remember that phrase: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    From: http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx

    Members of the IIGCC includes:

    BBC Pension Trust

    To be a bit more specific as to the BBC involvement:

    From: http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1440290/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment


    Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00
    Categories: Investment

    Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
    The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.

    IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”

    Did you catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

    The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme.

    Recall: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    So the IIGCC chairman (the BBC) are “calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand”
    And the BBC is using “their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors” to achieve the goals of the group.

    Why are you surprised that the BBC is doing exactly what they have committed to do?

  98. roger says:

    OT but my grandson reading economics at Exeter Uni reports that yesterday at Exeter St. Davids station half the Labour Cabinet arrived including the arch loonies Hilary Benn, Milliband and Bradshaw .
    Visiting the Hadley Centre to plot the way forward perhaps?
    Encouragingly they travelled by train. Less so they then used a fleet of 4x4s and limos for the rest of the journey!!

  99. Steve Keohane says:

    vibenna (23:50:41) : This was why I was on about the UAH data showing strong warming. Whatever the cause, it is clearly occurring over the last 30 years. So that 25% is denying some fairly clear empirical facts. Unless of course it is all within the bounds of natural variation.

    Re: What deniers of climate change are really denying
    Link @ ScientistForTruth (04:59:39) See Above

    1. “Control is the key issue for the deniers of climate change ­ control over the way we live and how we use the world’s resources. ”

    2. “Climate change threatens our narcissistic omnipotence. Deniers do not want anyone else telling them they can’t drive large cars or run two refrigerators. They want to hold on to the belief that not only does mother earth have unlimited resources but that these resources should remain entirely within their control.”

    3. “This is a mentality resembling the narcissism of small children who want to hold onto their illusion of omnipotence and control over mother. Any threat to their position is experienced as a narcissistic wound that is tolerable only to the extent that their attachment to mother is relatively secure. “

    I find the above quotes interesting. I had noticed during the last US Prez campaign, that the political party that supports AGW used an interesting tactic. That is to accuse your opponent of your own faults. This does two things, shifts the focus to your opponent, and inhibits them from making accurate accusations against you, for the opponent will look silly saying, ‘No, that’s not me, it is you’.

    Looking at:
    #1. Deniers of nature think they are controlling climate.
    #2. Only deniers of nature have a sense of omnipotence over nature.
    #3. Only deniers of nature have a delusion of omnipotence over nature.

  100. R. Gates says:

    Meanwhile…while the battle goes on for the hearts and minds of the people between the AGW believer and deniers, February continues the trend of 2010 as being the warmest year on record. February temps way above those of any other February (globally). See:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    At all levels of the troposphere, from sea level up to 46,000 ft. the temperature for February (and January 2010) up up up from past years.

  101. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Will Hudson

    “Our sole AGW proponent in the pub has just arrived back from a month in sunny Egypt with the astonishing news that “man-made global warming is proved. All the cold weather just proves that the actions following Kyoto have already had the effect of cooling the planet!””

    That’s fine, then. We don’t need to change our current lifestyles? I note that CO2 is going up, and we certainly aren’t cutting it, so I wonder what actions he’s thinking about. Perhaps it’s just warmists attending conferences that does it….?

  102. Thomas says:

    @Mark

    Either I misunderstand you or one of us has misread the results.
    Climate change is happening but not proven to be man-made: 38%
    Climate change is happening but that it is man-made is propaganda: 10%
    Climate change is not happening: 25%
    Total: 73%

    @ict558

    I’m not really sure of your point. I’m saying that the number of those who are still convinced about AGW (i.e. have no doubts, or believe ‘the science is settled’) is around the same as the number of ‘core left’ voters, who are attracted to this set of ideas for other reasons. I suggest there is a link: those who aren’t already inclined towards these ideas for ulterior reasons are now sceptical to one degree or another. I don’t see the relevance of IQ here.

  103. 3x2 says:

    Andrew30 (08:12:45) :

    Thank you for that – you have done a little more research than I. I had just looked at the ECX. Patchy looks Positivity Pristine compared to the BBC. I apologise for my Bong Clutching Co-operative jibe. I obviously wasn’t cynical enough – a lesson I should have learned a long time ago where AGW is concerned.

    Is it even possible to be too cynical where AGW is concerned? Can we have a WUWT poll?

  104. John Galt says:

    OT but very worthwhile:

    If you’re going to do good science, release the computer code too

    Programs do more and more scientific work – but you need to be able to check them as well as the original data, as the recent row over climate change documentation shows

    One of the spinoffs from the emails and documents that were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is the light that was shone on the role of program code in climate research. There is a particularly revealing set of “README” documents that were produced by a programmer at UEA apparently known as “Harry”. The documents indicate someone struggling with undocumented, baroque code and missing data – this, in something which forms part of one of the three major climate databases used by researchers throughout the world.

    …more…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release

  105. Spector says:

    I see the New York Times has a article with the headline “Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry” and the first comment posted regrets that a more emphatic headline such as “No Wrongdoing on Mann’s Part yet found in alleged climate scandal” would be too wordy.

  106. Richard Sharpe says:

    EU Referendum reports that another problem has been found in the IPCC documents … seems it will be available later today.

  107. tty says:

    Now if somebody would ask me is an opinion poll:

    ”Do you think Global Warming is taking place”

    I would probably answer “No”, though I am well aware that Global Warming has been going on for about 150 years. The reason being that I know perfectly well that a “Yes” will actually be regarded as a “Yes” to the question:

    ”Do you think Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place”

    To which I think the answer is much more likely to be “no” than “yes”.

    I wonder how many of those who said “No” reasons like me?

  108. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    skepticism has a fever

  109. Gary Pearse says:

    PhilW (23:42:03) :

    OT- Electric Charge Can Change Freezing Point of Water.
    Could this apply on a global scale?

    Water is known to remain liquid 20-30F below freezing point in fine clays. It is thought to be a result of the Gibbs-Thomson effect (google it) which is used to explain extreme frost heaving. It may well be rather because of electric charges on clay particles.

  110. Gary Pearse says:

    vibenna (23:50:41) :

    This was why I was on about the UAH data showing strong warming. Whatever the cause, it is clearly occurring over the last 30 years. So that 25% is denying some fairly clear empirical facts.

    Don’t forget that it was only 0.28C for Dec 09 and the latest – Feb 02/10 it has dropped already to 0.67C. One raisin doesn’t make it a Christmas pudding.

  111. daviditron says:

    I would be curious to know the state of Canada’s skepticism. Our public broadcaster has been a key player in spreading climate science misinformation. With all the recent news involving misuse of scientific funding the only news the CBC thought fit to print was a story about arctic ice thinning faster than expected!
    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

    I would be curious if any Canadian readers have been cataloging CBC’s climate gaffs

  112. Richard Tol says:

    Another day, another error: http://climategate.nl/2010/02/06/klimaa … r-koraal1/

    IPCC, 4AR, WG2, Ch4:
    ‘Doubling CO2 will reduce calcification in aragonitic corals by 20%-60% (Kleypas et al., 1999; Kleypas and Langdon, 2002; Reynaud et al., 2003; Raven et al., 2005).’

    The cited papers give a range of 0-35%.

    The Netherlands Minister for the Environment rushed to the defense of the IPCC in an early stage. She now has egg on her face and is very cross — and that was before this story appeared this morning.

  113. Bryan says:

    DIRK H
    The kind of double sided solar panel I has in mind was the type used to heat water usually placed on roofs.
    The difference this time is that it will collect radiation from the bottom as well.
    As shown in the IPCC diagram the “back radiation” from the greenhouse gases is almost as strong as the full radiation from the Sun and should not be wasted.
    I was under the impression that the IPCC was so worried about co2 in particular because it absorbed and transmitted in the infra red so the panel should be fine.
    Such a device (which I will call the IPCC SOLAR PANEL) will collect the infra red from the top and also from the bottom as shown in the IPCC diagram.
    Do I think it will work?
    Frankly no,
    But then I am reassured by the IPCC statement that “the Physics is incontovertable”

  114. Mick (Down Under) says:

    Ralph (01:34:13

    A typical weasel-worded question from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, to increase the number of ‘yes’ answers. They asked:
    “”Do you think Global Warming is taking place”” —
    On second thoughts, this is the British general public. So how about:
    “”Do you think Man-made Global Warming is taking place””

    I agree
    The mistreatment of the language is a travesty. Whole phrases are ‘coined’ to take on a special meaning that is destructive of the underlying meaning of the language itself. It is a means of confusing people. This technique is commonly used as a ‘group speak’ to marginalise people outside the group.

  115. Jeff Alberts says:

    Wow, such poorly framed questions! They keep intermixing “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”. The two phrases have different meanings in the real world.

  116. Wansbeck says:

    I liked the BBC’s Richard Black’s attempt to spin the poll:

    More than half of respondents said they were aware of news stories about “flaws or weaknesses in climate science”.

    But in this group, 16% said they were now more convinced of the risks of climate change, against only 11% who were less convinced; so if exposure to “ClimateGate” or “GlacierGate” or other such issues has done anything, it has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming.

    I find it difficult to believe that ‘flaws or weaknesses in climate science’ has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming and can only assume that it has led some true believers to renew their vows.

  117. View from the Solent says:

    wayne (05:40:26) :

    Patrick Davis (02:40:16) said “Insects account for more biomass on Earth than all other speicies combined.”

    Ever wonder if single cell and tiny multi-cell organism species in soil and ocean account for even more mass than insects? They can be be found in most any drop of natural water or gram of soil.
    ————————————————————–
    On the right track, Wayne. I can’t put my finger on anything more recent right now, but Gold T. 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:6045-49, had a minimum estimate of 50% of biomass for bacteria. Nowadays, a 70% figure is widely accepted.

  118. Andrew30 says:

    Wansbeck (10:07:56) :
    “I liked the BBC’s Richard Black’s attempt to spin the poll:”

    Perhaps he is worried about his upcoming pension.

    (Andrew30 (08:12:45) )

  119. RichieP says:

    Pachauri’s airmiles.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7165816/Rajendra-Pachauri-head-of-UN-climate-change-panel-clocks-up-half-a-million-miles-of-air-travel.html

    “…. But in terms of my personal lifestyle, I’m very careful about not being consumptive in my habits.
    “I’m careful about use of transport in my daily life.” ”

    Especially when driving to work, eh Pachy?

  120. Kate says:

    This might explain China’s rejection of any sort of deal at Copenhagen:

    Australia, China sign $60-billion coal deal
    http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article102174.ece

    [Extract}

    An Australian mining firm has signed a record $60-billion deal to supply coal to energy-hungry China for the next 20 years. The deal is the biggest-ever export contract in Australia’s history, said Clive Palmer, chairman of Resourcehouse, which will supply China Power International Development (CPI) with 30 million tonnes of coal every year… The country’s State-run firms have in the past year struck a number of deals with resource-rich Australia, which has become China’s biggest supplier of coal imports…

    …China relies on coal for as much as 70% of its energy needs, and is the world’s biggest consumer of coal. Though the government has stepped up investments in renewable energy in recent years, it still accounts for only 7% of the country’s energy requirements. With soaring energy demands, China, in 2008, became a net importer of coal for the first time…

    Strange, how Greenpeace protesters never have any demonstrations in China. They stopped the building of a clean coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth last year, while conveniently forgetting that China builds one of these power stations every four days. Then again, I don’t suppose Greenpeace activists find the phrase “Chinese gulag” very appealing either.

  121. DanD says:

    I can’t believe that many people said “Climate change is not happening.” Climate, by its very nature, must change! I think that shows how the media have co-opted “climate change” as a euphemism for “global warming.”

  122. Peter Plail says:

    R. Gates (08:31:53) :
    Out of interest I followed your link to the excellent applet and had a look at near surface temperatures.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001

    Hey, guess what I found at the bottom of the graph:
    “The temperature on 04/02/2010 is 529.83 deg F cooler than the same day last year”

    This does tend to make me suspicious of information on this site.

  123. Invariant says:

    Honorable WUWT readers, please read how we Norwegians still are being brainwashed with scary climate scenarious:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?prev=no&hl=en&u=http://www2.uit.no/ikbViewer/page/nyheter/artikkel?p_document_id=170507

    ”I think it was a very impressive – but scary lecture.”

    ” To avoid serious problems with crops – especially in the areas of development, so we should keep warming below 2 ° C. But we have a time problem – we have to act soon. Calculations show that if we do nothing until 2015, so we must have a reduction in pollution at seven per cent – every year, to reach the goal of an increase of only 2 ° C.

    Make the other hand, nothing by the year 2025, so he believes that the train has gone. Then there nothing.”

    Robert W. Corell is an American climate scientist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell

  124. Christopher Jones says:

    Before you all get carried away, remember that in February 2003, 80% of the British population were against the war in Iraq. And look what happened then. (The irony is that we went to war in Iraq to bring them democracy!)

  125. Michele says:

    Most of us know the truth. Unfortunately, I just received a formletter from Senator Dianne Feinstein telling me, basically, that the IPCC has solid science backing up man made global warming. She seems committed in her ignorance to push cap and trade.

    It’s disturbing how out of touch a Senator can be.

  126. red432 says:

    How does the agw percentage compare to the percentage of people who believe they were abducted by aliens? (they wouldn’t take me: said I was a “poor specimen”)

  127. Jack Simmons says:

    Funny quote:

    “If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?” Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Science, February 5, 2010

  128. Billyquiz says:

    The latest gate has just been opened:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html

    “Even the mildest critics of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri might now be moved to observe that they have eschewed uncertainty, to project the most pessimistic scenario imaginable – with no scientific support and a great deal of embellishment. After “Climategate”, “Glaciergate”, “Amazongate” and now “Africagate” can either survive?”

  129. mandolinjon says:

    First, the advocates of AGW said that there is a overwhelming “consensus” of scientists that have studied and that support that global warming is totally man made. Then when 6000 scientists signed a petition saying that there is no consensus, they said the “science is settled.” Now, after this BLOG and others opened the multiple “gates” that allowed the flood of truth to wash away the “real dirt” in the IPCC report and have revealed dishonesty at CRU from their own e-mails, the AGW’s are using a favored trick in politics. Let’s poll the people who don’t know anything about the climate change (global warming) for their opinion by selecting questions that do not mean anything and by providing fuzzy alternative answers. A consensus of poll opinions that favor global warming is worth more than open evaluations performed by people with scientific knowhow.

    From the BBC poll 64% either believe global warming is man totally made or believe that it maybe totally man made. Only 10% really understand there is significant doubt in the IPCC position. The use of climate instead of global warming was selected because it is cold outside and that would bias the results. From this poll the warmists must have a warm fuzzy feeling because only 10% of those polled really understand that the IPCC position lacks credibility. The sad point is that it is going to take a more time and a lot of educational effort to undo the position taken by the advocates of AGW that global warming is totally man made. We really can not expect any help from the mainstream television media or newspapers and magazines. They have invested 15 years in convincing the public that AGW is real and true.

    Is trurh in climate science without hope? Well, look at how far the participants in the BLOGs have carried the debate. How much work (unfunded) the BLOG masters have done to keep us informed. For example WUWT has had 34,834,276 hits. I’ll bet any media outlet welcome that much interest in their opinion. Also See Ridley’s article on Bishop Hill.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/4/spectator-article-now-online.html

    Why? Because people can read and comprehend on the BLOGs that the “science is not settled”, that there is not an overwhelming consensus of support for man made global warming, and the debate is intellectually open for the most part in a spirit of inquiry. No one controls the BLOGs. The architects of the IPCC position have shot themselves in the foot by lying, by being disingenuous and by wanting to control the science of climate to falsely shore up their position. The media will not be able to use the usual cast of characters to defend IPCC position because they can’t be trusted. They approved the IPCC report and gave it validity. Therefore, this BLOG and others like it need to continue fight for intellectual openness and honesty about the climate. We need to support them in this effort. They do this because they love truth.

  130. Wansbeck says:

    Andrew30 (10:22:55) :

    Wansbeck (10:07:56) :
    “I liked the BBC’s Richard Black’s attempt to spin the poll:”

    Perhaps he is worried about his upcoming pension

    Me too, I’ve got a deferred BBC pension from 25 years ago and am fast approaching retirement:

    AGW is real and is much worse than we thought. We need to act last week before it’s too late.

    Hang on, wait a minute, the government has guaranteed the pension. That is if they have enough money left to pay it:

    AGW? Baahh!

  131. Manfred says:

    and still all three traditional parties think they can the win next election by ignoring the 74% who did not agree that global warming is established and mostly man made.

  132. Mick (Down Under) says:

    Kate (11:03:00) :
    ‘This might explain China’s rejection of any sort of deal at Copenhagen:
    Australia, China sign $60-billion coal deal
    http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article102174.ece
    An Australian mining firm has signed a record $60-billion deal to supply coal to energy-hungry China for the next 20 years. The deal is the biggest-ever export contract in Australia’s history, said Clive Palmer, chairman of Resourcehouse, which will supply China Power International Development (CPI) with 30 million tonnes of coal every year… The country’s State-run firms have in the past year struck a number of deals with resource-rich Australia, which has become China’s biggest supplier of coal imports…’

    How can Australia pass an ETS bill while exporting all this coal to China? It is hypocritical and exactly the same, albeit on a different scale, as N.Z. is doing. Where is the logic or morality in this? Tax Australians for emitting greenhouse gasses but export coal to China so that it can. I ask you. Where the hell is the Prime Minister at?

    Mick

  133. Patrick Davis says:

    “View from the Solent (10:12:15) :

    wayne (05:40:26) :

    Patrick Davis (02:40:16) said “Insects account for more biomass on Earth than all other speicies combined.”

    Ever wonder if single cell and tiny multi-cell organism species in soil and ocean account for even more mass than insects? They can be be found in most any drop of natural water or gram of soil.
    ————————————————————–
    On the right track, Wayne. I can’t put my finger on anything more recent right now, but Gold T. 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:6045-49, had a minimum estimate of 50% of biomass for bacteria. Nowadays, a 70% figure is widely accepted.”

    I find this quite interesting, and a new factoid to ponder, thanks. However, I was responding to someone who was asking about how many humans were on Earth which are generally considered to be multi-cell organisms, mind you there are some, failed presidential candidates and smutty novelists and the like, who seem incapable of sharing a single cell of honesty between them.

  134. martyn says:

    Just a thought in the light of the BBC pole would it be helpful to give a bit of fresh exposure to the Government petition regarding CRU Climategate that you ran a few months back.

  135. Rhys Jaggar says:

    The skeptic caused is aided by pathetic stories on the front page of the Independent today which implies that $100,000 funding from ExxonMobil renders skeptics ‘conspirators’.

    It might be better journalism to list funding by warmers (HM Treasury for starters) against funding by others to see how much the warmers get. Run a story saying ‘Warmers got £1bn grants since 1990 to hype global warming’?

    ExxonMobil are allowed to fund research. As is NOAA.

    It’s not a crime, you know, to fund research.

  136. Rob says:

    I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones,

    Read the comments.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

  137. Mick J says:

    This account in the London Telegraph about FOIA requests being denied regarding the role of a METO scientist who apparently ignored reviewer input stating over some claims were being overplayed.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Met Office blocked role of leading scientist in climate change row
    The Meteorological Office is blocking attempts to reveal the role played by its top climate scientist in a controversial report on climate change.

    Published: 9:45AM GMT 07 Feb 2010

    Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s director of Climate Science, was involved in publishing claims in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have been heavily criticised.

    However, the Government has endorsed moves to prevent Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with IPCC colleagues in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary whose department has responsibility for the Met Office, personally supported the suppression of these documents.

    Prof Mitchell is said to have dismissed concerns over contentious statements made in early drafts of the IPCC report and included them in the final version.

    These included the headline that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years and a graph that showed a steep rise of temperatures in the 20th century.

    Official IPCC reviewers cited other scientific papers that argued the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7178430/Met-Office-blocked-role-of-leading-scientist-in-climate-change-row.html

    Also in the same section http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/, claims that Pachi flew 500,000 miles in a year.
    and Sir David King criticises climate scientists for ‘overstating’ the risks of global warming.

    King has no shame following so close to his claims of foreign powers et al re. climategate.

  138. OceanTwo says:

    So, he (Black) tells us how we are all so confused (or he is, by the results) because the northern hemisphere has had its warmest January in a while, and the ocean heat content is pretty high. So why is it so damned cold by any measure that counts? Oh, I forgot – Global Warming Causes Global Cooling…

    Seriously, though, I am actually a bit concerned. A few degrees change in temperature in the negative direction – where it matters at ground/level where-people-are – is a serious issue. Keeping warm is a lot harder than dealing with warmer temperatures, which can usually be made quite tolerable and comfortable with a change in behaviour and basic elements of living.

    Warmer is, on the whole, better for mankind and a multitude of species (fora and fauna). Colder, on the other hand, is going to make things quite uncomfortable. In other words, all this global warming that the doomsayers have been warning us of is actually a good thing – “Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Buying lottery tickets puts you at the precipice of the pit of money!”

  139. Wow, passionate comment after comment after comment :|!

    It’s difficult to give a definitive answer, even as an environmental writer, because the proof given simply doesn’t give any kind of real definition.

    I remember reading over the Copenhagen summit website, and the comments were full of thought-provoking, unquestionable material proving facts that point towards the ice-mass on earth increasing and man-made climate-change having a very limited impact on the earth.

    It’s good that we are starting early though; most of the methods that today are pushing towards a healthier environment save money, time and effort in the long-run, and will benefit the world as a whole for years to come.

    I can only wince at the idea of the massive species-wide effort to halt climate change being at best pre-mature… if it happens, the world will be worse off than it was before, simply beause people won’t trust politicians, scientists or world-leaders for a long time to come.

Comments are closed.