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
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!