From NetNewsledger.com
Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?
Written by James Murray
THUNDER BAY – Yesterday was the International Day of Action on Climate Change. In Ottawa, cold weather kept the crowd from hitting the 5,000 people that organizers hoped. About 500 people showed up. In Calgary, a snowstorm dumped wet heavy snow on the city.
On Google, unlike past climate change events, there was not a special logo created. On the front pages of major newspapers across Canada the major stories were not about the looming climate crisis.
In Winnipeg, about 200 people made it to a rally at the Manitoba Legislature. In Vancouver, a city steeped in protest, the crowd was estimated at 5000. Across Canada interest in the day of action appeared less than ever.
Could it be that the fire is smoldering out on the issue of climate change? Maybe in an era where ever shorter attention spans want to shift to other topics the climate issue has had its “ten minutes of fame”?
On the popular news site www.bourque.com the climate issue is not mentioned. This morning, on Google News, there isn’t a mention of the day of protest on the top stories either. The front page of the Toronto Star is void of climate change stories too.
Over on www.wattsupwiththat.com a website that over the past several years has dug into the issue, the comment is that global warming and climate change are “urban legends”. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. writes, “I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming”.
It is, perhaps causing some in the movement to ramp up their rhetoric to try to gain more attention. Elizabeth May and the Green Party recently took the approach that the only way to get the message out is to state, “Your Parents F*cked Up The Planet”. May’s justification is that “Our culture is steeped in the F-word”.
Read the complete article here: Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?
I love Top Gear…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6233221/Jeremy-Clarkson-People-are-bored-of-climate-change.html
ralph (02:37:47) :
“Moreover, those windless days are anticyclonic, and so tend to affect the entire UK (and most of Europe too). If we had 20% wind power in the UK, as this Greenpeace-Eco-Government wants, we would have a power cut every week, and sometimes for weeks on end.”
So true, Here is a wind map for the UK.
http://www.xcweather.co.uk/
BTW, it’s still wobbly at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I have a No10 petition running to get this ad pulled:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop wasting taxpayers’ money on climate change propaganda designed to frighten our children.
At the moment there are 749 signatures, please take the time to send the government a message by signing up.
The petition is labelled “Climate ad”
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/
Nic (01:22:36) : “I found the article rather dissapointing. He seems to suggest people are becoming bored with AGW rather than believing it an unproven theory.”
Perhaps that is enough, Nic. I suspect most of the extreme supporters of man-made-roasting are just in there for the adrenalin, and the average guy and girl do it as a “cause” to fill in boredom time, and none of them either know or care about the “science” anyway — therefore “boredom” is probably to be expected, and as such is positive if only by lowering the vote and support of those who do catastrophe for a living…
Perry (01:53:48) :
OT, but AMSR-E has “glitched”, it would appear.
A “U” turn from 7,527,652 down to 7,447,813 square kilometres of Arctic ice. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
If it is not a glitch in data processing, there must be very high winds blowing there. Remember for the area they count 15% of the ice so there is a lot of space for compaction.
If there are strong winds I expect we are going to see a lot of movement of cold air down to us and a spike should come up in the temperature in the DMI plot on the right.
In a light-hearted essay, Clive James takes a look at Montaigne, golf-ball crisps and our attitude towards climate change sceptics.
“In fact the number of scientists who voice scepticism has lately been increasing. But there were always some, and that’s the only thing I know about the subject. I know next to nothing about climate science. All I know is that many of the commentators in newspapers who are busy predicting catastrophe don’t know much about it either, because they keep saying that the science is settled and it isn’t. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm
If the cold wave(s) continue, this crowd will move on to another bogeyman. The power you would have over the world by having the right to regulate CO2 is too great to give up. The next focus will be on ‘ocean acidification’ as the reason to control CO2 emissions.
“He seems to suggest people are becoming bored with AGW rather than believing it an unproven theory.”
Honestly, in the world of pop science, what’s the difference? Most people don’t know the thermoelectric effect from a thermostat.
Even assuming the contention of the article is true, institutions like the IPCC which are far removed from the democratic process will be glacially slow to reflect any change in public sentiment, if at all.
R.E. Nic
That just about sums it up. Trends are based on relative interest aren’t they? Did you really think the layperson was attracted to AGW because of ‘facts’?
After the hedonistic 80’s-90’s period, people needed psychological penitence. Enter Global warming.
This is all about the collective psyche, nothing to do with facts and everything to do with the unconscious state of humanity.
Why does history repeat?
It was covered here in great detail, over several articles.
Done and Done. Turning point has been achieved.
The real fight and reconstruction has to begin. The rules of science must be defended.
“Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?”
I certainly hope so. Perhaps now they’ll clear the stage and yield to real scientists so that an understanding of what’s really happening can be achieved.
“Canadian PM Stephen Harper may simply ignore Copenhagen’s climate change scam”
“Environmental evangelicals are the most gullible constituency on the planet. They will be spouting industrial quantities of dogma at the Copenhagen treaty summit this December. Here’s a prediction: after it’s all over, the last man standing at the BS Corral may well turn out to be Stephen Harper – Conservative prime minister of Canada, normally a country susceptible to Green scare stories.”
“But Harper, currently enjoying his highest-ever polling numbers, has shown an acute lack of interest in international ol’ boy back-slapping. He shows up late for world leader photos in which he usually appears somewhere on the periphery; in September he skipped the organised daytime UN “climate change” blathering and re-emerged in time for dinner, and largely held out on emptying the treasury while other governments were doing so in a manifestly misguided attempt to spend their way to prosperity. Here’s what Harper had to say on the issue during the September summit:
“Our government is committed to working toward a comprehensive and effective international agreement that puts the world on a clean energy path. We need the commitment of both developed and developing nations on a framework that is fair and ambitious, yet realistic and responsible, in addressing the challenges of climate change.”
In political speak, he’s not committing to signing anything – although he used the term “climate change”, which will lead some to think he must be a true believer and not simply applying it with the same linguistic weight as, say, a preposition. But look again. He’s supporting a world pact for “clean energy”, but also says it has to be “realistic and responsible”. If the Copenhagen Treaty isn’t, he has left himself an out.
Worst case scenario: Everyone can sign this thing, then just ignore it just as Canada and some other countries are doing with the Kyoto agreement. It’s “enforced” by the United Nations. What are they going to do? Invade Canada?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/rachelmarsden/100014731/canadian-pm-stephen-harper-may-simply-ignore-copenhagens-climate-change-scam/
The AGW mantra has been chanted so often that the direction of thought has been set, much like a large container ship heading towards the shoals. Our course of action is dead set on carbon emission restrictions, green jobs, and ‘save the polar bears’ mindset, and even if everyone agrees there is no real science behind AGW, it will take at least a decade before the ship of thought can be turned away from the looming reef of economic disaster.
Anthony, time to bring out the obligatory “Fonzie jumps the Shark” photo.
Except I’d like to photoshop it, though, maybe put Al Gore on a motorscooter jumping over James Hansen.
Would a day of inaction not be more appropriate since almost every action performed by people results in CO2.
Mothers used to tell their children the story of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, the message of that story being that if you lie or exaggerate repeatedly, eventually people won’t believe you even if you are telling the truth. The environmental movement has been crying wolf for years in the belief that the truth isn’t enough to motivate people and the people still haven’t seen a wolf, so they’re tuning out. No surprise there. I guess they don’t grasp the effect that repeated lies and exaggerations have on their credibility because, gosh darn it, their intentions are just so noble.
Please read “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker. Absolutely brilliant! It shows what a coniving bunch of manipulative liars the green/environmental lobby is, what they stand for, and what their real intentions are. As for the IPCC? Absolute disgrace to science! But hopefully, at last the veil is lifting from people’s eyes and the truth is starting to become apparent.
Remember the new Red is Green – and they have an agenda!
WOO HOO !!!!!!!!!
The reports of the death of AGW are going to be slightly exaggerated until we see what really happens at/after Copenhagen. I am hoping that there will be a very large snow storm. It’s a wonder that they aren’t holding this conference in the Brazilin rainforest for PR
Interesting article in the Guardian today related to this …
Green taxes ‘under threat from Treasury’, claims Greenpeace
Many may not realise that in the UK groups like this who are Registered Charities get a kick-back from general taxation from donations and membership subscriptions. IMHO activist groups like Greenpeace should have their Registered Charity status removed. Why should every UK tax payer be effectively forced to subsidise extremist minorities?
I’m inclined to agree with Bulldust (01:34:49). I don’t trust ‘em either!
In the end, AGW is really about one thing — money. Given that we have spent ** billions ** of dollars on this research since 1990 is a testament to the success of the AGW movement. By the time the general public find out it’s a scam (since everything “bad” is supposed to happen 30 years from now), the scientists and researchers involved will have retired with generous government-funded pensions and lucrative consulting contracts.
The effectiveness of AWG alarmism may very well have peaked with the public. These things tend to run their course in a couple of years when the press has built up the strawman to a size large enough to burn him down. They’ll be almost as mis-informing on the downside as the upside, but it’s their job to create the news and everything runs in cycles. Don’t look for the issue to go away, though. The luddites are too numerous and under-employed to give up activism. It will just break out in a new, and hopefully, less effective form. Unfortunately, the politicians will chew the AWG bone for a while longer because they’re slow to catch on to public opinion when they have such a tool to do mischief in their hands.
Dave Wendt (02:48:27) :
MH (01:56:58) :
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
Check out this article – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
I am very interested to hear your comments on the article
This was covered in a number of posts last week. Look for posts with midges in the title. Long story short, it’s worse than the usual AGW dreck.
Dave, they don’t tell anything with content, no scientific facts, just bla, bla, bla, and one of their standard remarks found in many of their publications “It looks normal but it is different this time!
Science Daily is a consistent producer of the most unreliable and unscientific BS I’ve ever seen in my life and this article is one of them.
It’s not printed on paper because… you know what!
Something looks odd with the Oct 25 JAXA plot. It looks like the data is taking a jog straight down. Could it be data problems?
Shiny
William