A survey report titled Climate Confidence Monitor commissioned in part by the Earthwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute shows that confidence that we can actually manage climate change has been falling for the last two years in most countries:
The question was: “I believe we will stop climate change”.
They cite in the report:
A fall in optimism and low levels of confidence in leaders suggest that people are becoming more pessimistic about the scale of the challenge that climate change presents.
I suppose that is one way to spin it. Here’s some other findings from the report.
First here is the report that you can read yourself:
Here’s a graph I found interesting:
The answers suggest to me that the responses are more about saving money than saving the planet.
h/t to WUWT reader PaulM
Cool – I’m a “pessimist”…
Of course, my actual position is 100% optimistic, in that I don’t believe “we” are a “problem” therefore nothing “we” do will provide a “solution”.
I find it interesting that the two most optimistic countries, China and India, are the same countries given a free pass in the Kyoto Treaty and who are on record as presently unwilling to “buy-in” to a cap and trade system. India’s position is there is no global warming whereas China’s position is there may be but they’re not willing to ruin their economy over it unless everyone else ruins theirs first. So, I’m guessing their optimism is founded in the belief that you can’t fix what isn’t broke?
Shame the question wasn’t – “Does climate change need stopping?”
Copenhagen Treaty
November 3, 2009
The famous Copenhagen Treaty, which few seem to have read, is here:
Copenhagen 2009.pdf
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/copenhagen-treaty
It’s good to see people are coming around and understanding that you can’t control the climate or weather .
Ed Scott,
Thanks for the Copenhagen link. I’ve had a quick look and unearthed this little gem:
“PP.11 Further acknowledging the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that delay in reducing emissions significantly constrains opportunities to achieve low stabilization levels and
increase the rise of more severe climate change impacts,”
In other words, signing parties will be bound by the IPCC position alone. No amount of research by Lindzen, or Spencer or anyone else, no matter how debunking as to the efficacy of the IPCC, can be admitted as contrary evidence. Game over!
Hank, both India and China are going to milk the Europeans for every thing they can. They will do or say whatever is required to further that end. If the greenies are fools enough to give stuff to them, they will go right along until the well runs dry.
“The question was: ‘I believe we will stop climate change’.”
The question is meaningless. Does “climate change” mean man-made “global warming” or just a natural process that has nothing to do with the human race?
No wonder there is a fall in optimism. When man-made global warming was replaced by the more ambiguous “climate change” it became more difficult to make up one’s mind about what the issue is, let alone take a stand regarding it.
Maybe the question should have been, “Do you believe we can reliably, safely and consistently control the weather?” 😉 I’ll bet the trend line wouldn’t be much different.
It’s indeed very questionable whether these “pessimists” are on the same side as the skeptics, or on the opposite side of the barricade.
During a recent MIT speech, Barack Obama who is the acting president of the U.S. said that the deniers (naysayers) were being successfully “marginalized” but the pessimists were even worse than the deniers! 😉
How would you answer the question “Do you believe we will stop climate change?” Of course, we won’t, at least not in the next 1,000 years. Who knows what planetary air-conditioning they will use in 3009.
But what’s “pessimistic” about the answer “No”? It only deserves to be called “pessimism” if stopping climate change is one of the goals of one’s life i.e. if one is not quite mentally stable.
“I believe we will stop climate change” is a bad survey question because it leaves so much open to interpretation. Who’s we? What does “stop” really mean? Or “climate change” mean? That any more than a couple of percent of the respondents actually think they can “stop” a mostly natural process means they’re conflating several ideas. Worthless.
Me:
A natural climate optimist
A climate science realist
A big cliam pessimist
A reasonable solution denialist
An American captialist
A social government Revialist
A free market revivalist
BTW: I’ve got an interesting set of videos from gridded RSS and UAH simulteneously plotting lower troposphere, mid troposphere, and lower stratosphere. They show some unique things.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/rss-and-uah-videos/
The Survey Says: The concensus on climate exists solely within the Agenda itself.
It also speaks volumes on the integrity of the leadership of the world.
The survey method is questionable too. 1000 online responses from “consumers” in each of 12 countries that represent 50% of the world’s population. The biases are obvious.
Can protection of the status quo be more extreme than trying to prevent “change?”
Or is it extreme change they seek, the death of billions?
If change is too scary for some people, it is because it is being driven by a dishonest/unstable money and banking model. Fix that and the lunacy will go away.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Henry Thoreau
Tim S. (10:15:10) :
The ambiguity of AGW was becoming all too apparent. They had to shuffle the deck in the middle of the deal because the cards weren’t playing out in thier favor (bad predictions), and they had already been caught altering the deck.
After reading the HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor, several blatant statistical spins stood out:
65% worldwide express support for a new global deal on carbon emissions (69% see it as an equal or higher priority than the world economy).
Only 2% worldwide believe a new climate deal isn’t important.
After looking at the charts presented I am struck by how none of them seem to support the above conclusions. But then again, we need to consider who’s working the numbers. HSBC stands to make billions in trading carbon allocations. Of course their study would conclude only 2% of the world population doesn’t see the need for a global carbon trading system.
Another case of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Steve in SC (10:11:29) :
I totally agree.
World wide? Why those particular twelve countries? They are hardly representative of the ‘whole world’. The entire North American continent is represented, but nothing from the African continent? What about the Middle East? Without any explanation from the report, we must assume the deck was stacked.
It’s a stupid survey. But here pretty well everyone knows that (Scott Mandia etc being the exceptions). What I want to see is people get their basic info right.
* CO2 is doubleplusgood for plants and no danger to us.
* Warmer is on balance better for us than cooler.
* The planet is now cooling.
* Climate Science is still young and knows precious little with certainty.
* Sensational disinformation has been rampant.
* Muzzling of the science is unthinkable, but it has happened.
* We cannot solve the real problems without checkable Science.
Page 3 of the report says that
“The number of people rating climate change as the major issue they worry about has dropped to fourth place”.
Concern about climate change has dropped since last year in 11 of the 12 countries surveyed, from 26% to 18% in the US and from 26% to 15% in the UK .
Report: Climate confidence falls worldwide
So what!
Even if 99% of the people on this planet state they thing Global Warming and Climate Change is a hoax, it will not make any difference.
Why? Because our legislation is already poisonous and now serves the forces that are out to destroy our economies from the inside.
We have to develop a totally new strategy to resist.
Today, one of the world’s most prominent Skeptics, Vaclav Klaus was forced to surrender the sovereignty of his country, twenty years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, because the legislative system of his country has been infiltrated.
Don’t mind the outcome of Copenhagen. All the tools and mechanisms out to destroy our countries are in place now. We need to think of entirely new ways to fight this.
Read here what Claus said about signing the Lisbon Treaty today and learn:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/klaus-signed-lisbon.html
Looks to me that Gore would be most effective by spending more time in India. Lots and lots of time in India.
Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments
http://www.klima2009.net/en/papers/4/6
Atmospheric CO2 background levels are sampled and processed according to the standards of the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory mostly at marine environments to minimize the local influence of vegetation, ground or anthropogenic sources. Continental measurements usually show large diurnal and seasonal variations, which makes it difficult to estimate well mixed CO2 levels.
Historical CO2 measurements are usually derived from proxies, with ice cores being the favorite. Those done by chemical methods prior to 1960 are often rejected as being inadequate due too poor siting, timing or method. The CO2 versus wind speed plot represents a simple but valuable tool for validating modern and historic continental data. It is shown that either a visual or a mathematical fit can give data that are close to the regional CO2 background, even if the average local mixing ratio is much different.
A validation check has been made for 3 historical CO2 series. The overall impression is one of continental European historic regional CO2 background levels significantly higher than the commonly assumed global ice-core proxy levels.
OT – just to say that is is official in English law – belief in man-made climate change is a religion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm
Quote: Tim Nicholson’s solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”
As an athiest, all I can say is thank God I live in Scotland 😉
Maybe this action helps, maybe not.
http://nationalstrikeofnoconfidence.blogspot.com/
I read the study perhaps a little differently than the authors. I see the responses telling us that the more developed (and presumably educated) a population, the less likely they are to believe humans can manage a planetary climate.
It is therefore not a measure of optimism, but of ignorance to believe that “Global Governance can solve the climate crisis”.
In other news, Climate Change “belief” has been given the same weight in law as a religious or philosophical belief, a court in the UK has decided. So, we have a situation now where:
The lunatics have….. oh wait, I’ve said that so many times over the years it’s hardly worth repeating.
Note: the article didn’t discuss hugging trees. I included that for impact.
“* CO2 is doubleplusgood for plants and no danger to us.” Lucy Skywalker
But what if one eats mostly animal ; )
Zo,
“CO2 is doubleplus good for life and is necessary for us since that is what we are.” more accurate?
Just teasing one of my betters.
(Except fungi and ocean vent creatures come to mind. Oh, well.)
Ed Scott (09:57:40) : “The famous Copenhagen Treaty, which few seem to have read, is here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/copenhagen-treaty ”
Ed, I’ve downloaded a copy and tried to read it. It is all very disgusting, seen from an informed viewpoint. But this raises an especially red flag:
…38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: (a) The government will be ruled by the COP (Conference Of Parties) with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
Note that a “related facilitative body” might include UN armed forces.
No change in Canada. Interesting bit of information.
This looks like a survey designed to get the answers they want, but looks like a lot of people are still climate realists, despite the CAGW hype.
Meanwhile, here’s the latest from the London Science Museum ‘Prove It’ propaganda, which gives a totally biased view of the CAGW debate, and has a poll asking for support for the Copenhagen Treaty.
* 1427 counted in so far
* 6259 counted out so far
The poll finishes end November, with results going to the UK government. If you want your view known, but haven’t done so yet, you can have your say here:-
http://sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Monbiot is worried:
Clive James isn’t a climate change sceptic, he’s a sucker – but this may be the reason
My fiercest opponents on global warming tend to be in their 60s and 70s. This offers a fascinating, if chilling, insight into human psychology
o George Monbiot
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009 21.30 GMT
“There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A study by the website Desmogblo shows thaat the number of internet ages prooposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum’s Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they’ve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they’ve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet ad in thee rightwing ress doess not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.”
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
According to Moonbat the science “has hardened “????
He is such a condescending lad, so sure of himself, he is the precise reason many folk are so damn fed up of all the talking down and spoon fed hysteria, get a life George.
Sorry if I’ve overstepped, (snip if you must) but this fellah drives me to laughter. It is the pompous and righteous indignation that the world does not look through his rose tinted spectacles- that really gets me.
Pardon me, Luch Skywalker,
I should have said “precise” not “accurate”. Even that might not be the best word.
Oh, well.
Make that “Lucy”. I am flustered. Going to lay down now.
Isn’t the n (number of respondents) a little small for the broad sweeping claims about wanting “strong leadership at the Copenhagen talks”? 1000 people per country, with no mention made of how they were selected, is a terribly small number.
I do agree that it seems that people are more concerned with saving money than the planet. Sensible.
Back2Bat (11:01:28) :
😀
Thomas J. Arnold. (11:20:41) re Moonbat
😀
Tenuc (11:18:03) [the latest from the London Science Museum ‘Prove It’ survey]
* 1427 counted in so far
* 6259 counted out so far
doubleplus 😀 ++ :D++
Lindzen is right, there is a disconnect with the supposedly more intelligent folk. And Monbiot should have been reading all the replies to his stuff all this last year, he should have paid attention as a good scientist should do.
O?T but British law now says that a belief in climate change can be likened to a belief in religion. Says it all really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
I have been involved in surveys,I wonder how many respondants knew what
was being asked.I love these things.I also love to be the chuckhole in whatever
Curve they are trying to put on the data…
I also wonder how many responded like I did…
When you think that such prestigious institutions as Earthwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute can’t even write a QUESTION properly… “The question was: “I believe we will stop climate change”.” That’s not a question!!! It’s their answer. Wait, maybe the main sponsor for the survey are the same guys that made the game Jeopardy. Writing a question as an answer is like asking Yoda to speak properly… when you think that in 900 years he never managed to learn English properly… it’s pathetic.
“Don’t mind the outcome of Copenhagen. All the tools and mechanisms out to destroy our countries are in place now. We need to think of entirely new ways to fight this.
Read here what Claus said about signing the Lisbon Treaty today and learn:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/klaus-signed-lisbon.html” Ron de Haan
I was praying he could hold off signing that blasted treaty for another six months or so. With luck the UK will still hold a referendum vote of her people next summer but I doubt it since the treaty has now been ratified.
For those of us in the USA please remember.
“The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!….”
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
We as a people can override WTO, the Copenhagen treaty… if we can get ONE state to pass a statute to nullify the treaty.
Several states have passed “state sovereignty resolutions” They do no carry the force of law but they are a statement of the legislature of the state serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/
So far
18 states have had a resolution introduced
9 passed one house
8 passed both hoses
3 have failed
This may be are last stand as it were against those who wish to rule us.
Of course we can stop Climate Change. Just kill everyone on the planet. The climate may change after that, but no one will notice.
I think it more represents a belief that we couldn’t change the climate even if we really wanted to. Perhaps a small dose of realism. Not fearing the imagined problem.
The first law of opinion surveys – never commission a survey until you know the answer.
Second Law – If the answer is not right, change the question
I can see from the second graph that most “optimists” are liars. There are certainly not that many hybrid or electric cars on the roads, so little in fact that the companies need subsidies.
They also give more money to “charities” that tackle climate change. That’s a good one. Are the governments and government sponsored climate change laboratories “charities”? Is Al Gore a “charity”?
The third one that is a a clear lie… the optimists choose to travel long distance by trains instead of airplanes. I’d like to see how they travel by train from one continent to the other.
The fourth one clearly demonstrate that they lied about buying a hybrid or electric car. Driving more economically has nothing to do with trying to use less fuel to “save” the planet but they are still using fossil fuel powered cars nevertheless. Hypocrites!
When the governments force you to buy low energy light bulbs how hard is it to say that they buy such devices intentionally to use less electricity. The solar panel market is not skyrocketing. They also need subsidies from governments.
As for the two others, they are like everyone and want to reduce real pollution and waste.
moonbat:
An unthinking or insane leftist — in other words, most modern leftists.
Moonbat can also be used as an adjective, e.g. a moonbat professor. According to the Wikipedia entry for moonbat, the word was coined in 2002 by the Editor of Samizdata, Perry de Havilland, and was a variation on the name of radical British activist and columnist George Monbiot. from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat
Time for a moniker change:
Que Sera, sera
whomever shall this one be?
A leftist he’s sure ain’t he.
Que Sera, sera.
What could be might be. apologies to Doris Day and/or whomever
Andrew P (10:56:25) :
OT – just to say that is is official in English law – belief in man-made climate change is a religion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm
Quote: Tim Nicholson’s solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”
As an athiest, all I can say is thank God I live in Scotland 😉
Why does Andrew P select “religion” only from the above statement about the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. The statement makes it quite clear that the regulations apply to “philosophical beliefs” as well as religion.
Incidentally, Andrew, the only part of the United Kingdom where the regulations do not apply is Northern Ireland. They apply as much in Scotland as in England. This can be checked at the following:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031660.htm
I am changing my bank!
I don’t want these idiots looking after my money!
Anyone know a bank that doesn’t subscribe to this idiocy?
DaveE.
When you think that such prestigious institutions as Earthwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute can’t even write a QUESTION properly… “The question was: “I believe we will stop climate change”.” That’s not a question!!! It’s their answer. Wait, maybe the main sponsor for the survey are the same guys that made the game Jeopardy. Ray ons as Earthwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute can’t even write a QUESTION properly… “The question was: “I believe we will stop climate change”.” That’s not a question!!! It’s their answer. Wait, maybe the main sponsor for the survey are the same guys that made the game Jeopardy…. ” Ray
Actually they guys who give them money are the banker/oilmen just like Back2Bat keeps saying.
For example World Wildlife Fund has gotten
$120,015.00 plus $300,000.00 plus $15,375.00 plus $55,000.00
from the various Rockefeller foundations. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth and surprise surprise Organic Consumers Association, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Center for Food Safety are also on the Rockefeller money strings. That is why I keep connecting the attack on the food supply with the global warming hoax. The money behind both of them is the same. http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/154
There is another connection too. Rosa Delauro was the sponsor of the food safety bill HR875, her hubby is Stanley Greenberg pollster, strategist and master manipulator of the public. It is interesting Greenberg-Quinlan Research Inc is mention as her husband’s place of work in Delauro’s bio. Sweet, fluffy Greenberg-Quinlan Research Inc with the connections to foster care and schools, but there is no mention of Greenberg Carville Shrum who directed Campaigns in 60 countries (including Tony Blair in the UK) and was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco. Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
“…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming….” http://tpm.apperceptive.com/profile/Stan%20Greenberg
“As a hired gun strategist, Greenberg—a seasoned pollster and political consultant—has seen it all. In his memoir, he recounts his work with President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela…. This captivating tale of political battlegrounds provides an inside look at some of the greatest international leaders of our time from the man who stood directly beside them.”
http://macmillanspeakers.com/stanleybgreenberg
You will notice Waxman is behind the food safety bill HR 2749. It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law. Waxman even sent out e-mails in his district urging support of the bill. You would think he has his hands full with Cap and Trade but I guess when we shot down Delauro’s bill he had to get into the act.
I turn off the lights because it saves money. I reduce/reuse/recycle because after growing up in a third world country, it was what you did to extend the resources available and it is still a responsible use of resources. I now use cfl light bulbs because they banned the sale of the other kind. None of this is due to the fear that the sky will turn to fire and rain down on upon me or that we have less than 100 days to save the planet.
Since when does driving “more slowly” = “more sensibly”? Count me out there, I will continue to drive to the conditions. I think I will live longer in the hope that I will out live other foolishness. Donate money to greenies …. think cold dead hands! There are far better causes (eg Opportunity International) to give money to that will actually make the world a better place for less fortunate people and help lift them out of their current “lo-carb” footprint. There are far better enviro causes that don’t even care about CO2 yet will help save species close to extermination without having to chain themselves to anything.
I think you can walk more lightly upon the earth without being a believer in AGW. Does that make me a pessimist? A denier? A skeptic? Should I care? Perhaps the greatest concern I have is that the madness will continue!
Control of ‘Climate Change’ is God’s realm.
Government Climate Control is a modern Tower of Babel;
Pride comes before the fall.
The most significant change in the UK media lately has been the increasing sensitivity of the alarmists when faced with any sort of questioning of their beliefs. Take the “Point of View” program on the BBC two weeks ago. Clive James expressed his admiration for independent thinkers who refuse to go along with consensus, and form their own opinion based upon facts.
The reaction to his talk is still reverberating, and has now reached the level of personal abuse from Monbiot and others in the media ganging up on him for speaking up for skeptics.
It’s amazing to consider that Clive James provoked such a hysterical reaction after talking on the radio for less than 15 minutes, when compared to the global warming worshipers who have managed to monopolize the media and broadcast thousands of hours of climate change hogwash for years.
“It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science.” Monbiot.
Who’s up for the challenge? I say, let’s get a list of papers criticising AGW and send it to Monbiot in the hope he’ll eat his words. Here’s my choice:
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
This paper by Cazanave shows that the rate of sea level rise has slowed since 2003, and in particular, the steric component (due to thermic expansion) has plunged, confirming that there has been no increase in OHC in that period.
Gail Combs (12:30:24)
“I was praying he could hold off signing that blasted treaty for another six months or so. With luck the UK will still hold a referendum vote of her people next summer but I doubt it since the treaty has now been ratified”
The Tories have just announced that they’ve dropped the referendum idea as the Lisbon deal has been done and there’s no way back!
Thomas J. Arnold. (11:20:41) :
Monbiot is worried:
———————————
It occurs to me that Monbiot’s way over the top attack on Clive James, who was only after all writing in praise of healthy scepticism, may be because he is, as far as I can recall, the only non-scientist celebrity to publicly question AGW in the UK.
I suspect that the warmists are terrified of celebrities turning against them and especially dread the thought of comics making jokes at their expense. That is what would totally bring down AGW in the public eyes, not learned peer-review papers.
Once AGW becomes a subject for ridicule on “Have I Got News For You” and “Mock the Week” in the UK, and on their equivalents elsewhere, then it’s all over.
So James has to be stamped down upon hard so that no-one else can doubt what treatment they would get. Clive James isn’t on mainstream TV much these days but otherwise I suspect that his career would be in jeopardy.
In his nasty attack on James. Monbiot can’t attack James intelligence so he attacks his age and wonders why many of the people who dare to question the great Monbiot’s beliefs are in their 60’s and 70’s. The irony being, of course, that if they were any younger the likes of Monbiot would do their best to make sure that they never worked again.
Everyone is missing the big picture. The fact that people like to “Donate Money” to relieve their eco guilt reveals it all. Its far less painfull to throw away a few bucks than to actually drastically change your lifestyle.
As they say, “There is a sucker born every day”
Can we stop time? When we can stop time, we can stop climate change.
Monbiot is clearly in the pay of the world bank owners. Even he must know that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified?
I don’t think there is even a small chance that the Copenhagen treaty will be signed this year.
“Actually they guys who give them money are the banker/oilmen just like Back2Bat keeps saying.” Gail
Well, I haven’t said anything about oilmen since they actually do something rather than just create money from nothing.
The bankers have created an insane world whether they meant to or not. They just thought to get rich and powerful. Now they are stuck with the responsibility too.
“Can we do it?”, cry the alarmists.
The people reply, “No, we can’t be bothered!”
The reality is that AGW is not important to ordinary folk.
The question was: “I believe we will stop climate change”.
Time for King Canute to show us what can be done when you believe *really really hard*…
Regardless of this result, I believe the political machine that is AGW is unstoppable. It will be foolish however for any politician to ignor public opinion.
Obama, Rudd, Brown, are you listening?
As someone who does business in Asia, I think the discrepancy on optimism between those in China/India and the rest of us in the West can also be explained by the relative stages of our cultural development. China and India have recently been unshackled from decades of socialist policies and there is an enormous release of pent up innovation and drive. they’re seeing the potential of human initiative and it’s reflected in their outlook on life.
In much of the West however a malaise has set in. Government is increasingly taking over our lives, we’ve developed a form of cultural self-loathing where we view ourselves as agents of destruction rather than progress, and in a way we have simply gotten lazy after decades of conflict-free prosperity.
So just as a pollster might expect different levels of optimism from people in Asia than they do in the West, I too as a businessman would expect that by hiring in Asia I’m – generally – going to get a much more driven and forward-looking employee.
Luboš Motl (10:22:06) :
Barack Obama who is the acting president of the U.S.
Funny! 😉
It would be nice if he’d start acting like a real president.
Gail Combs (12:30:24) :
Knowing that Europe is lost, Lord Monckton has directed his activities to stop the Climate Scam to the USA, the only place in the world where it really matters.
Unfortunately the ship is already sinking.
Time is running out.
Thomas J. Arnold. (11:20:41) :
Monbiot is worried:…. “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing”…
Then he goes on to say people are not listening to the science. What a mindless ideologue he is!
Lucy Skywalker (11:55:14) :
Monbiot should have been reading all the replies to his stuff all this last year, he should have paid attention…
People hear what they want to hear—even scientist. Last I checked scientists are people. 😉
Gail Combs (12:30:24) :
International treaties mean nothing to the average American. The only question is : do people want to make the effort to keep European rule out of America. I think they, on average (or is it mean), do….at least once more. After that I don’t know.
The demographics of the American population is changing.
The demographic that is the descendants of those who left Europe for a better life in the USA, and who still don’t want European rule creeping in, is shrinking. When other demographics overtake that demographic I think America will become very different.
Gene Nemetz (16:44:32) :
Last I checked scientists are people. 😉
Some of us are anyway…
Does anyone think an executive summary staying strictly to the facts (with citations to back up the facts) – citing the following… I welcome additions…
This summary would be an attempt to bring reason to the masses in a form they may understand…
1. The Earth’s climate has fluctuated constantly for billions of years.
2. The Earth has been _________ degrees cooler than now.
3. The Earth has been _________ degrees warmer than now.
4. Although some men may think they are more powerful than nature – and can control the climate – history has shown otherwise.
5. Why on earth would anyone name a block of ICE ‘Greenland’.
etc…
What does everyone think?
Jon
A shrewd job of polling by the warmongers. Guess its result will be good for another quick soundbite.
We’ll wish we could stop Climate Change after the next Ice Age begins.
Gail Combs (13:16:26) :
‘You will notice Waxman is behind the food safety bill HR 2749.’
I wonder who wrote that bill? The Tide Foundation?
TERRY46 (10:01:50) :
It’s good to see people are coming around and understanding that you can’t control the climate or weather.
It would also help if they came to understand they can’t control human nature, or man’s rational thought.
William (12:03:37) :
O?T but British law now says that a belief in climate change can be likened to a belief in religion. Says it all really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
How is this in the UK: Are you allowed to practice your religious ceremonies at your place of work?
These results don’t surprise me.
Here’s the latest from southern NZ. Look at the new Queenstown record which has stood for 130 years at least!
Chilly weather kept temperatures down to record low levels across Otago last month, with Dunedin experiencing its coldest October since records began about 60 years ago.
Nationally, it was the coldest October in 64 years, with an average temperature of 10.6degC (1.4degC) below the long-term average) and record low temperatures recorded in many areas, including Otago, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) climate summary says.
Temperatures were more than 2degC below average throughout South Island eastern and alpine areas, climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said.
Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for October since records began in 1873, with a mean temperature of 2.8degC, 1.6degC below normal.
Dunedin also recorded its lowest mean minimum for the month since records began in 1947, shivering in 4.1degC (0.8degC below normal).
The city was the coldest of New Zealand’s six main centres, with a record mean temperature of 9degC (1.5degC below normal).
It was also a dry month, with Dunedin the only main centre to experience below-normal rainfall of 40mm – only 60% of normal. The rest recorded about 170% of normal rainfalls.
In the extreme low mean maximum daily temperatures Dunedin at Musselburgh recorded its lowest at 12.8degC (2degC below normal) and the airport its fourth lowest of 14degC (2degC below). Oamaru recorded its second lowest at 13.4degC (2.6degC below) and Balclutha its lowest since records began 45 years ago with 13degC (2.5degC below).
The lowest October temperature of -5.5degC was recorded at Ranfurly on the 5th but it was not a record for the town.
Records were broken for extreme low daily minimum temperatures at Dunedin airport (-3.3degC on the 7th), the lowest since records began in 1947 and Queenstown (-3.5degC on the 5th), the lowest since 1871.
CHILLING OUT
• Dunedin the coldest of New Zealand’s six main centres.
• Lowest mean maximum daily temperatures recorded at Dunedin 12.8degC, 2degC below normal.
• Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for at least 130 years.
Here’s a good poll question :
Should we have the courage to do nothing?
@artwest
“the only non-scientist celebrity to publicly question AGW in the UK”. Well, I guess you could also include Jeremy Clarkson. But what about ‘scientist celebrity’ Prof. David Bellamy? Since he realised that AGW is just a dangerous hoax he has been reviled and ostracised. When was the last time you saw him on the telly? Previously he was on TV every verse end!
Despite the whines from the likes of Monbiot, that is one example of the power of the orthodoxy in the UK and the reason why so few sceptics will stand up & be counted.
So far as the “survey” that started this thread is concerned, I wouldn’t use anything produced by the World Wild lies Fund to wipe myself if I was crouching behind a bush with my trousers down.
But it does remind my of an (allegedly) Russian saying:-
A pessimist is a man who thinks things will get worse.
An optimist is a man who thinks things can’t get any worse.
In this context, optimism / pessimism really doesn’t enter into my thoughts on the climate, which will just cussedly keep on “doing what a climate’s gotta do”. And without being greatly affected by homo sapiens one way or another.
But considering the current political set up in the UK. And the US. Not to forget our chums and colleagues in the EU, it is difficult not to be very pessimistic indeed about the outcomes of the Constitutional=Lisbon Treaty, the Copenhagen Treaty and indeed the quality of life we some of us enjoy and all of us aspire to (including, let us not forget, the ordinary african or indian or chinese citizen who just wants to raise the kids and have a few laughs.).
This bleak vision is entirely thanks to the eco-fascists who are steadilly building up their power base with active complicity of the media and precious little active opposition from anyone.
But one day they will be held to account and I hope I’m still around to see it.
Gene Nemetz (16:38:49) :
Absolutely.
artwest (14:22:01) :
Couldn’t agree more.
Lucy Skywalker (11:55:14) :
He’s a journo, gained a 2:1 at Oxford (Brasenose) in Zoology. Hold various professorships at different Uni’s.
the man is a ‘singularity’.
@artwest
“the only non-scientist celebrity to publicly question AGW in the UK”. Well, I guess you could also include Jeremy Clarkson. But what about ‘scientist celebrity’ Prof. David Bellamy? Since he realised that AGW is just a dangerous hoax he has been reviled and ostracised. When was the last time you saw him on the telly? Previously he was on TV every verse end!
Despite the whines from the likes of Monbiot, that is one example of the power of the orthodoxy in the UK and the reason why so few sceptics will stand up & be counted.
So far as the “survey” that started this thread is concerned, I wouldn’t use anything produced by the World Wild lies Fund to wipe myself if I was crouching behind a bush with my trousers down.
But it does remind my of an (allegedly) Russian saying:-
A pessimist is a man who thinks things will get worse.
An optimist is a man who thinks things can’t get any worse.
In this context, optimism / pessimism really doesn’t enter into my thoughts on the climate, which will just cussedly keep on “doing what a climate’s gotta do”. And without being greatly affected by homo sapiens one way or another.
But considering the current political set up in the UK. And the US. Not to forget our chums and colleagues in the EU, it is difficult not to be very pessimistic indeed about the outcomes of the Constitutional=Lisbon Treaty, the Copenhagen Treaty and indeed the quality of life we some of us enjoy and all of us aspire to (including, let us not forget, the ordinary african or indian or chinese citizen who just wants to raise the kids and have a few laughs.).
This bleak vision is entirely thanks to the eco-fascists who are steadilly building up their power base with active complicity of the media and precious little active opposition from anyone.
But one day they will be held to account and I hope I’m still around to see it.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
Thanks to Tenuc (11.18.03) I have posted this message on the Science Museum website. By the way did you see the patsy interview of Al Gore by Jeremy Paxman? Obviously Paxman was banned from asking awkward questions.
My message to Science Museum:
‘The Science Museum, of all places, should know that the paleoclimatalogical evidence shows that CO2 has never been a primary forcer of the earth’s climate. For humanity to attempt to clontrol/redress the odd part per million of CO2 is an exercise in expensive futility and self delusion. There are so many errors on the website that I suspect the co-authors are Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann and George Monbiot. Do I detect that this more evidence of scientists prostituting their learning in order to protect their generous government grants?’
Ron de Haan (10:50:36) :
I just read Claus’ comments regarding his signing of the Lisbon Treaty. It was depressing in its capitulation. What a bitter pill to swallow it must be for the leader of a former Soviet-bloc country.
It’s frustrating to come across people who subscribe to this discredited bunk because they think they’re being responsible. How puerile!
When will the adults reclaim society? We’re being led around by overgrown kindergartners! I’m reminded by a poster that read like “everything important I learned, I learned in kindergarten”. Stuff like being nice to people and picking up after yourself. I’m sure it didn’t promote honest reward for honest work, living with consequences of your actions, and the like.
Regarding the UK’s (or British?) recognition of climate change as equally protected as religion…that could almost be an ironic benefit here in the US where conservatives for once could argue in favor of separation of church and state and perhaps put an end to Congress’ climate change hand-wringing.
Apologies for the incoherent ranting…..
Global Warming, Climate Change, is a hoax. Even if we were creating it there is nothing we could do to stop it. Look at who stands to profit it and then look at who promotes it. Al Gore has and will profit from it personally. Wall Street, Goldman Sacs in particular, stands behind it. They will make billions from selling carbon credit. This is a scam and an attempt to have a world government. China and India, who won’t sign on to the treaty, are the most optimistic. What does that tell you? Wake up.
BobWS (10:26:58) :
‘Global Warming, Climate Change, is a hoax.’
Global Warming, Climate Change as well as Global Cooling is not a hoax. It’s very real.
CO2 induced Global Warming, Climate Change, is the hoax.
You have to frame your argument with CO2.