Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Thanks to the blog of the irrepressible Hilary Ostrov, a long-time WUWT commenter, I found out about a poll gone either horribly wrong or totally predictably depending on your point of view. It’s a global poll done by the United Nations, with over six million responses from all over the planet, and guess what?
The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.
Now, people are always saying how the US is some kind of outlier in this regard, because polls in the US always put climate change down at the bottom, whereas polls in Europe generally rate it somewhat higher. But this is a global poll, with people chiming in from all over the planet. The top fifteen countries, in order of the number of people voting, were Mexico, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Philippines, Thailand, Cameroon, United States, Ghana, Rwanda, Brazil, Jordan, and Morocco … so this appears to be truly representative of the world, which is mostly non-industrialized nations.
So the next time someone tries to claim that climate change is “the most important challenge facing the world” … point them to the website of the study, and gently inform them that the rest of the world doesn’t buy that kind of alarmist hogwash for one minute. People are not as stupid as their leaders think, folks know what’s important and what’s trivial in their lives, and trying to control the climate is definitely in the latter group.
The poll will be open until 2015, so you can register your own priorities …
My regards to everyone, I’m off for a staff Christmas dinner with the workmates of the gorgeous ex-fiancee, life is good.
w.
De Costumbre: Please have the courtesy to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS of whatever you might disagree with. This lets us all understand the exact nature of your objection.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Worrying about “climate change” is akin to worrying whether the paint will dry.
Hey, there are conditions under which paint will not dry properly, and that can be a real problem, unlike climate change.
You forgot the /sarc tag.
But, but…paint will take longer to dry due to climate change. (Sorry couldn’t resist).
+1 Verity
@ur momisugly Just Thinkin’
No, I didn’t
It’s a PGA graph; low score wins.
White paint varies. Ask Anthony.
One need not ‘worry’ about climate change… it will happen… I find it ironic that the implementation of the most important issue, education, would likely provide the necessary insight to elevate the (currently) least important issue to a higher priority… it might be added that methane, rarely mentioned, is 21 times more potent than CO-2 as a greenhouse gas and is being released in large amounts by waste treatment plants, landfills and cattle feed lots… not to mention leaks from mining and microbes that are being released from permafrost within the arctic circle… http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/28/methane-hot-spot-seen-space-hovers-over-four-corners-157560 … this link has a satellite shot of methane concentrations… note the feedlot (yellow dot) in southern California…
Thats hilarious – the time is not far off when they’ll either stop doing these polls from sheer embarrassment, or just rig them to show the “right” answer.
Will it be like the hockey stick theorem ?
Actually , if you rotate the graph 90 degrees it does look like a hockey stick. With climate change being the “knob” of said stick (as in the most useless part unless you need it to hang on the the stick).
That was a Big Bang Theory episode, wasn’t it?
Climate change worries and advocacy are mostly expressed by comfortable Westerners who have enough electricity, food, and comforts as well as a relatively comfortable standard of living.
Look at the graph carefully. The top concerns of the WORLD are a good education, better healthcare, job opportunities, good governance, good food, anti-crime, clean water, sanitation and unemployment support. Now someone in the UK’s well off Surrey may well have all of these concerns. So they find something to worry about.
Obesity in southern Sudanese children is not a widespread problem.
CORRECTION:
“…Now someone in the UK’s well off Surrey may well NOT have all of these concerns….”
There goes the “willing suspension of disbelief”. And about time too.
The only reason “climate change” didn’t come in 17th is that there was only 16 choices.
Point me to another poll generating 6 million (!) responses. That’s seriously hard to credit. But, in this case, I’m willing to suspend disbelief, because the upshot is so damning for the beleaguered heat-huggers. Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.
mnzxnb12’s comment reflects an unusually open admission of how “skepticism” works in the WUWT comments!
Nigel’s comment below is the usual open tactic of the troll.
Now, now boys; let’s give Nigel a fair hearing…
Nigel, referring to WUWT as a “skeptical” site is generally correct (def: having or expressing doubt about something). The process most on this site use to conduct an effective argument is to use logic and citing examples or research supporting a claim. Snark is not our weapon of first choice simply because it’s emotional, not educational.
Now, as noted by mnzxnb12, please give us a documented example of another poll generating 6 million responses…or put your little troll hat back on and return to the dark side.
It is interesting to note those issues high on the list. Education, healthcare, jobs, honest Government (I assume this means not corrupt) & affordable food. Where are the grants for these important issues. Scarce resources that could be put to use to improve these issues will no doubt still be diverted to climate change studies.
Is that honest Government?
Sorry, doesn’t anyone note that ‘political freedom’ is fourth from last with ‘freedom from discrimination” above that? And that ‘protection from crime and violence’ is only sixth from the top? Our education systems are producing people who cannot see that these are the priorities, for without them (they’re really the same thing) most of the rest would not be possible, including sanitation and food.
I find this alarming.
Sanitation is not possible without political freedom? That’s a bit far fetched.
@DirkH
“Sanitation is not possible without political freedom? That’s a bit far fetched.”
Yeah; a bit farfetched. Some guy named Mussolini managed to get the trains to run on time and I think there was pasta aplenty. I’m not sure how much he upgraded the sanitation installed by the Romans, but then those guys knew how to build for the long term.
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/engineering/pcengin.17.jpg
http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2009/08/109389,xcitefun-pont-du-gard-5.jpg
I am not sure why this would be alarming? This survey appears to include a reasonably wide sample. If so, you might also be one “who cannot see” that citizens of the world have different priorities than you appear to. From you comment, you seem to believe human beings should behave “logically.” Considering how many people smoke, don’t exercise regularly (even though they know better), eat poorly, etc. it is difficult to assert logical behavior as the norm. I would assert that emotions/feelings, not logic, dominate behavior.
Tell that to the people in the United Arab Emirates with little democracy but good food and sanitation. Not that I’m saying good governance is bad, but your statement is wrong.
H.R., according to snopes.com, Mussolini may not have made the trains run on time:
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
Doesn’t anyone note that the top six are constantly being screeched by politicians to get the votes?
Gary.
I always assumed as much :o)
.
.
.
Hey! It’s sorta’ like climate data. If Mussolini was reporting the data, then by golly! those trains were on time.
Firey,
There are lots of examples of dictators delivering food and sanitation to their people. A. Hilter was an evil dictator but delivered much of what you quote. Sometimes delivering allows you to be more dictatorial – people are prepared to overlook you cruelty – and they sure did with those camps.
The fact is that you can’t praise Nazis for their farming reforms.
But that’s besides the point. The voting folks ranked as important what they consider important. This does not mean they love dictatorships. It means that they prefer a bunch of tangible things before being part of a TV commercial about “the founding fathers” (some of which were slavers and serial rapists, btw).
Jimbo
Good point.
Also, given “…The top fifteen countries, in order of the number of people voting, were Mexico, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Philippines, Thailand, Cameroon, United States, Ghana, Rwanda, Brazil, Jordan, and Morocco…”, a lot of these countries are places where it might not exactly be safe to advocate for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Pollsters never ask how important is acting on climate if it will raise your energy bill 25-100%
And Warmists never answer Andrew Bolt’s favorite question of “how many degrees of warming will all this prevent?”
Or what’s the correct temperature for the Earth?
Being Canadian, my preferred question is:
So, it’s too hot is it? How cold do you want it?
Olaf, that’s my favorite question too and if they answer I follow up with “and how do you know that? Do you have a copy of the planet’s manual with the specifications table?”
Actually MojoMojo, they have. And the vast majority of responents say NO.
When the electricity goes off, phone and internet access becomes number 1, or close to it…
They (Net and phone lines) fail as well.
For the people of the rest of the world or you? Many developing countries suffer regular blackouts, they learn to get by – turn on the generator, use solar powered phone chargers, car batteries etc. If I had only 2 choices then I would rather eat than send an email.
How is Domino’s going to know where to deliver your pizza? 😉
Robin over at http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/ found this World Development Report from the World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Publications/WDR/WDR%202015/WDR-2015-Full-Report.pdf
Really big pdf, so download may take a bit. Check out Chapter 9: Climate Change! Here’s a fun quote “An important role for psychological and social insights is to identify ways to convince populations to support, and governments to adopt, effective economic tools, such as carbon pricing, to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” A whole chapter on how to get people to buy into Climate Change better. What fun!
The Early Bird finds the Worm.
===========
Personally I was hoping for a better breakfast than that 😉
But the second mouse gets the cheese.
So, it’s a good idea for the worm to sleep in.
effective economic tools, such as carbon pricing, to curb greenhouse gas emissions
===================
how about putting a price on poverty? tax poor people more than rich people, so they will no longer want to be poor. this will end poverty.
that is the exact same economic policy as being suggested for CO2.
a pricing mechanism ONLY works if there is a viable alternative. if you can make a fuel substitution for gasoline at the pumps, to something that emits less CO2.
however, if there is no alternative, economic policies such as taxing the poor to end poverty simply makes matters worse. the same is true for CO2.
you cannot solve CO2 emissions by economic policy unless there is a viable substitute at an affordable price. otherwise the policy will simply do more harm than good. CO2 reduction in that case come from a reduction in economic wealth, not from fuel substitution.
In fact carbon taxes and higher energy costs make the poorer relatively poorer than any other groups. Forcing people to use inferior energy sources creates poverty worldwide.
Putting a `price on CO2`without any requirement for governments to use the money to actually replace fossil fuels with viable alternatives, becomes a simple tax grab. Note from earth to the watermelons – making people pay more to drive their vehicles and heat their homes will not prevent them from driving or turning up the heat when it`s cold; except the poor that is.
The World Bank are barking up the wrong tree as far as the Warmist Guardian is concerned.
I responded to this a long time ago.
Climate change is NOT at the absolute bottom if you select Canada, or the US… or age groups over 50. But definitely nowhere near as important as education and employment.
Well, some people over 50 have been guilted into thinking that they are “Destroying the Planet for Future Generations” by the climateers, so there’s bound to be some misplaced sympathy there. And it never hurts to target the largest and wealthiest (easiest to blame, most able to pay up extortion money) demographic.
If ‘Global Warming’ was much of concern to the over 50 crowd why do they all want to become ‘Snow Birds’ and move/retire to Florida. You would think they would be moving North to escape the coming heat.
Heh – where I am nobody wants to go to Florida… it’s all about Arizona.
We always get a laugh about it too… so instead of winter lows of -41C we might see winter lows of -39C… really really difficult to get upset about it, or move because of it. Again, people in winter climates should never be worried about warming.
Yea, I had a shot at moving to Tucson back in the 70’s but Mt. Lemmon just didn’t appeal to me after Aspen, Copper, Buttermilk, etc..
Eric Worrall
December 5, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Thats hilarious – the time is not far off when they’ll either stop doing these polls from sheer embarrassment, or just rig them to show the “right” answer.
“Rig” is the wrong word. The correct word is “adjustment”.
Nope.
Homogenize.
SkepticalSam
I feel the two cheats are distinct. Adjustment is placing a finite value in place of a measured value, changing it.
Homogenising is a way of hiding information entirely. A good example is AR5 in the section that covers the fabled “hot spot”. It is a given that there is no such hot spot because if it was there it would have been trumpeted loud and long from the rooftops validating the back-radiation theory of the greenhouse effect. So the question facing the Authors of AR5. was: how to hide the fact that years of looking for it and millions of readings of temperature show it is not there?
The hot spot is a core teaching of the Greenhouse Gas theory. I am not saying there are no GHG’s, just that the way they work is not as claimed. The hot spot at 8-16km altitude should warm three times faster than the surface beneath it. So, again what to do? Homogenise!
Here is how to do it: Mix the levels in the troposphere – the temperatures – so the signal, if it was there, becomes lost in the haze of mixed values rendering it undetectable. This smudges the precision of the original measurements. They then have the homogenised data independently reviewed, with all the necessary truthiness, and have the reviewer proclaim that the ‘data’ is not of high enough quality and the signal is therefore undetectable.
And that is exactly what is in AR5, followed by an assertive statement of belief that the hot spot “is probably there”. They write how confidently this can be said.
So homogenisation has a very specific purpose when it comes to delaying the inevitable crushing of the most fundamental claim of the greenhouse hypothesis: that CO2 will capture heat above the ground thermalising the atmosphere and sending the IR back down to cook our behinds.
Because the claim is so fundamental and the measurements so clear, only homogenisation has the power to hide the truth and create an opportunity to instead state a belief that “it is probably there”.
Homogenize.
Yeah. You know, that “education” result looks like an outlier to me!
Crispin makes a very valid point. The hot spot is at the core of GHG theory. It is one of the prime predictions of the climate models. And it is clear it does not exist.
A failed prediction is central to a falsified theory. I realize a lot of skeptics accept that increased GHG should cause warming, all else remaining equal. I would ask them to reconsider the “all else remaining equal”.
It is clear that increased CO2 is not leading to an atmospheric hot spot. In any other branch of science this would be sufficient in and of itself to falsify the CO2 hypothesis of Global Warming.
Something caused 2 periods of global warming. From 1910-1940 and from 1970-2000. The theory was that CO2 was the cause, but this has been falsified by both the lack of hot spot and the plateau in global temperatures from 1940-1970 and from 2000-2030.
When you homogenize, the cream does not float to the top.
Looking at the top 3 I wonder if those who do worry about climate change are the ones fortunate enough to have good education, good healthcare and good paying jobs.
Kind of funny is that people list having an honest government 4th behind those 3. The old adage is tweaked from healthy, wealthy and wise in that order to wise, healthy and wealthy even at the cost of a dishonest government.
Where is the option for an honest SMALLER government?
I just bought Discover magazines issue of the top 100 science stories (I know, I know, Discover: sheesh).
Number1 Ebola; fair enough.
Number 2 “Climate in Crisis.” It was riddled with scary stories, muddled facts and just plain obfuscations. They have long been in the tank with the CAGW crowd, but this was really over the top.
BTW, found it hard to even finish the thing. What a waste of money. My bad.
the sixteen categories are interesting and obviously good.
but I do wonder if the range was extended whether climate change would slip even further
The actual question is what banality would have to be on the survey that could place further down the list than “concern about climate change”.
With only 6 million responses, is it significant?!
…and where are the error bars? ;->
Closed during Prohibition.
Won’t phase the true believers one little bit. Just shows that the average person has no idea what is important and is just one more example of why the ‘elite’ should be running the world for our own good as the average man is clearly too stupid to know what is good for them. Sarc if it wasn’t obvious.
No, it won’t deter them. They’ll just claim they haven’t “communicated” the danger well enough. The hoil pilloi just don’t get it.
Warning: Devil’s advocate statement follows: Maybe it just means those polled believe the world’s governments have the right people on the job and that the project is well funded and so there is nothing to be concerned about. Gruber’s postulate may not be ethical but I think it also may not be far off the mark as a fact of life.
I think too the poll comes of as “Here are 16 things we’re going to do for you using other people’s money. Prioritize the list.” Note the top half of the list provides tangibles vs the bottom of the list. One gets the idea that if offered a gift car and cell phone, they might just top the list.
the simple fact that one can group items into a priority list means that none of them are mandatory. nothing that is mandatory has a greater priority than any other mandatory item.
when trying to decide priorities, a simple trick is to ask people to put items into an order. those items that cannot be ordered are the mandatory ones. the rest you can skip until later,
those in a position of power have different priorities than the man and woman in the street. the obama’s, kerry’s and gore’s of the world don’t see or understand our priorities because they don’t affect them.
go down the list starting at the top. how many of those items are a problem for obama, kerry or gore? it isn’t until you get to “Climate Change” that you find an item for them to worry about.
Thus, to obama, kerry and gore, “Climate Change” is the greatest threat to the US.
Notice “Reliable energy at home” is two thirds down the list, reliable, like a coal, nuclear, or gas electrical power plants. Way above action on climate change. People want the basics first, then envrionmentalism is a byproduct of wealth.
if you live in the boondocks of a third world tropical country, the reliable energy source is a PV system.
pulsar
You say
Yes, it can be relied upon to not work at night.
Batteries? Which do you want in a tropical country; refrigeration or lighting?
if you live in the boondocks of a third world tropical country, the dependable energy source is diesel powered.
Richard
It CAN be more economic to have solar + batteries. Diesel can be expensive for instance if you’re on a remote island.
Only if you are wealthy. The reality for most people in the boondocks of a third world country the reliable energy source is dried animal dung. There is no way ordinary people can afford PV systems. At best they might be fitted in a local health center, more often they end up lighting the house of the local strong man.
Do “you live in the boondocks of a third world tropical country”? If yes, what “reliable energy source” do you use?
A PV system is beyond the reach of most rural people living in a third world tropical country. Electrical power lines powered by oil or coal is more reliable than something they can’t afford.
pulsar,
Please don’t get me wrong here. I am not against solar for the sake of it. Our host A. Wattts has solar. I live in a third world country and for the well off PV and a diesel / petrol generator is what is available when there are no power lines. It’s can be intermittent but to those people it’s better than nothing. Some also use gas / propane powered fridges. Some even have small domestic wind turbines where appropriate. It’s better than nothing for those who can afford it.
reliable energy source is a PV system
==========
which country specifically have you found this to be true? We lived for 20 years in the tropics, sailing from country to country and we never found any country that used PV to deliver reliable electricity. Not a single one.
Instead, what we found were concrete poles and overhead electrical wires. Concrete because termites and fungus eat wood. Wires because your average person in these nations are much too poor to afford a small generator let alone a PV system.
A small generator cost about a much as a solar panel, but delivers 10 times the power of a solar panel. This means you can buy a generator to power a village for 1/10 the capital cost of an equivalent PV system.
Yes the generator will consume fuel, which means there is an operating cost. But this is spread over time. It is the up front capital costs that are the killer.
it is telling that “Reliable energy at home” is given priority over “Action taken on Climate Change”
Clearly the man and woman in the street is smarter than the average politician.
Not to mention that they are also smarter than the ever-expanding virtual army of overpaid UN-ocrats!
Unfortunately, the intelligentsia will just say that that shows that people are stupid and need to be led by the elite (them of course) who will dictate the right course of action.
don’t worry – the poll’s results will somehow be “interpreted” as showing CAGW topped the list!
we just had the Mission Australia Youth Survey 2014 results – 13,600 young Aussies aged 15-19 surveyed, so it’s quite large – showing the environment is way down in this year’s survey.
yet i heard an ABC radio presenter and News Ltd. below trying to spin that youth’s new #1 is CAGW by another name:
2 Dec: News Ltd: Liz Burke: Mission Australia Youth Survey 2014 shows kids don’t care about the environment any more
JUST three years ago when climate change was high on the political agenda and kids could be more easily pried from their iPads, environment was a big concern among Australia’s youth.
The nation’s biggest annual survey of young people found the environment was the number one “most important issue in Australia today” for 15 to 19-year-olds in 2010 and 2011…
Fast forward to 2014 and environmental concern has all but fallen off the radar for Aussie teens.
The latest Mission Australia Youth survey released this week saw environment drop to number 10 on young people’s list of issues facing the nation, with only 12.3 per cent of 15 to 19-year-olds listing it among their top three concerns…
Around one quarter of young people identified politics and societal values (28 per cent), the economy and financial matters (27.1 per cent) and alcohol and drugs (23.2 per cent) as the most important issues in Australia today…
Media lecturer and youth expert Dr Jason Sternberg from QUT says that the politicising of environmental issues could mean that how young people think about the environment has changed.
***“Give the fact that climate change has moved so much into the political terrain, I actually think because the debate has become so politicised, environmentalism may have slipped into the political and societal values category,” he said…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/mission-australia-youth-survey-2014-shows-kids-dont-care-about-the-environment-any-more/story-e6frflp0-1227142062025
***is Sternberg really suggesting CAGW has only become “politicised” in the past 12 months!
Sternberg thinks his readers are born yesterday. Sort of a Gruber.
Environmentalism is political since 1962 (Silent Spring)
So how do we get it up to 97 percent?
Some fellow in Australia will Cook that number up.
I noticed that they put “Action on Climate Change” first on the list. Not biased … much …
Yes, when I did the poll I noticed that “Action” put it first alphabetically. And that’s important as the moment you clicked 6 it locked your choices. If you had a higher priority that you found later on it was too late.
Or at least that was how it worked a few months ago when it was linked to at the Guardian.
You are correct on the placement of the answers of polling questions. I heard an interview by one of the national (USA) polling services founders (Zogby?) on how surveys are conducted To have accurate results, it CAN NOT just be a 1, 2 or 3 question survey (Dorn/Zimmermean comes to mind). It must contain multiple questions that should represent the same subject, but the questions need to be worded differently and the order of the selected responses must be change. He stated that was to ensure the respondents don’t just pick the first one (or few in multiple response) selection(s). If questions 1 and 6 are the ‘same’ question and the responses are selections B and D (the same response) then the pollster has high confidence that it is a valid response if the same person chooses 1B and 6D. BUT if another respondent answers B and B for questions 1 & 6, then they disregard that in the results because there is conflicting answers to the same question. Also, true polling agencies will divulge all of this info in their report. But usually it is to a private firm/organization that will only release their desired results/spin, generally keeping the details under lock and key.
How true MikeH. The methodology is very important as are the crosstabs in polling, at least according to what I’ve heard from reliable guys like Zogby, Rasmussen and Sabato. Those are almost always unavailable since that’s where the actual data is. Those who pay for the poll don’t give that part away in a press release. Far better to stick to the malleable single question data that may be properly massaged and manipulated to get the proper answer.
Just like the climate “scientists” you control the answer you get with the methodology you use.
On an online survey, the bozo-simple method is just present the questions in different order to each person polled … but they have a clear agenda.
w.
I noticed that the put “Action on Climate Change” at the top of the survey.
Not biased … much …
While I agree that “climate change” is really not what most people are concerned about, any number of “issues” could have been included/were left out in this poll.
17. More bombing of those lousy terrorists in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and middle east countries in general because if we don’t they’re gonna come over here and murder your mother, your sister and your dog (resources of the middle east and western oil companies operating in those places should not be considered for our purposes here).
18. Government corruption.
19. Criminal charges for criminal bankers.
Alright already … let’s get these priorities straight …
tonight, it’s Arizona vs Oregon …
and then tomorrow, it’s a full load …
Iowa St vs TCU
Alabama vs Missouri (Roll Tide)
Wisconsin vs Ohio St (w/o their QB, it looks bad for OSU)
but the real biggie will be Dr. Curry’s own Yellow Jackets taking on the Seminoles, Georgia Tech vs Florida State.
By Sunday morning, the top rankings in the College Football Playoff Rankings could be all scrambled … a fact much more interesting than any fantasy listing from the cloistered halls of the UN.
If they can show that football could,might,may be harmed by climate change they might pull this out.
Go Ducks ! :))
Maybe not as bad as some think. For most of the preseason Jones was the choice as backup to Braxton Miller. Barrett only edged Jones out for the spot at the end of the preseason. Then a week before the season Miller injured his shoulder and Barrett became the starting QB. OSU will be going into this game as they started the season. Barrett didn’t disappoint. I don’t think Jones will either. We’ll know tomorrow.
It will be an interesting game.
Go Iowa State! (yeah, I’m an alum 🙂
That is why UN folk and “scientists” try to prove that Global Warming, will cause more wars, and strife, and less food, less woman’s equality, more crime, etc – because, really no-one cares about Global Warming, so they try to get folks thinking Global Warming will be detrimental to the things they really care about.
Willis, this “gorgeous ex-fiancee” is she your wife?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/14/even-scientists-need-love/
Thanks John, I missed that one.. Very nice..