Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’, BBC poll shows
The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.
The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November.
The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.
And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”.
The findings are based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February.
In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus – commissioned by the Times newspaper – showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.
“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.
“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change – and becoming more so,” he added.
“More people are now doubters than firm believers.”
Read the complete story at the BBC
See the report in PDF format:
Patrick Davis (02:40:16) said “Insects account for more biomass on Earth than all other speicies combined.”
Ever wonder if single cell and tiny multi-cell organism species in soil and ocean account for even more mass than insects? They can be be found in most any drop of natural water or gram of soil.
Anthony
Having read ScientistForTruth’s comment, I think it is now time for someone like you – a world recognised sceptic with a large and growing following – to draw up a 10 to 12 point Sceptics’ Charter.
We need to make everyone realise just how misleading and plain wrong the rants of the alarmists are in regards to the science and rationale behind the sceptics’ cause.
Purely as the start of a thought provoking exercise, I suggest it might consider including points along these lines:
We recognise climate change as the norm, not the unusual, as clearly shown in the geological records.
We recognise global temperatures have risen by around 0.7 degrees C over the past century. However, no scientific evidence has yet demonstrated that this is not just a continuation of normal climatic cycles.
We abhor all bad science which seeks to scare, not inform.
We abhor the unscientific manipulation and deliberate destruction of historic temperature data.
When one considers that the BBC has been pushing the Agenda bending AGW scam 24/7 for the last 10 years, these results must be a complete shock to them.
ScientistForTruth (04:59:39) :
This is nothing new. The Soviet Union locked up thousands of people in psychiatric institutions and experimented on them because they questioned the communist party and its dogmas. Decades of doing this had no effect at all, and did not delay the destruction of the Soviet Union by so much as one day.
Thank god, critical reasoning is winning over belief. It’s got to go a bit further before it gets where it should be but it’s nice to see.
Kev Trenberth, 2002:
“We’ll never see winter as we once knew it again”
People have a way of remembering when they are lied to.
The time frame is critically important for a poll to have any meaning.
“Global warming” has been occurring for 11,500 years, since the last ice age.
“Global warming” has NOT been occurring since 2001. See Lucia’s analysis at The Blackboard.
Equally important is the distinction of whether the “warming” is predominantly “anthropogenic” or natural.
Without those key distinctions, such polls have little “scientific” value.
Re: Lucy (Feb 6 01:42),
A good question (disregard smokey lol)
I’ll give you the definitive answer, according to the trusted WWF.
For more than a decade, the WWF and several other conservation organizations have performed complicated calculations to determine individual footprints on the planet. Their numbers show that each American uses 9.4ha of the globe, each European 4.7ha, and those in low-income countries just 1ha. Adding it all up, we collectively use 17.5 billion hectares.
Unfortunately, there are only 13.4billion hectares available.
Don’t you hate it when trisexuals invade your space? 🙂
@Mrs Smallprint (01:00:49) :
“I would like to see the poll results by age group as I am sure that most of the firm believers are those who have been through our “school indoctrination system” in the last 20 years.
I don’t know anyone under forty who has swallowed the guff put about by the so called scientists.”
I think you meant to say “I don’t know anyone OVER forty…”.
I do. Actually, there are large numbers of AGW believers in all age groups, from pre-teens to senior citizens. An associate of mine (over age 50) is an MSE Ph.D, and has swallowed the AGW hoax completely. Why? He regularly reads many of the peer reviewed articles concerning climate in numerous scientific journals, and views Mann as the Messiah of Climatology. Articles by AGW skeptics are virtually non-existent in these journals. Unfortunately, it has never occurred to him that the so called scientific articles that are pro-AGW are laced with an underlying unscientific bias.
Interesting debate on the BBC blog, here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/cold_view_of_rising_scepticism.html
A rising tide of dissent. Previously, all these comments would have been deleted by the mods.
.
Khwarizmi
Amused to see you quoting Helen Liddell (accent on fist syllable of surname, she doesn’t like that). She was an aide to Robert Maxwell which says it all and was known in Scotland as “Stalin’s grannie”. She would start a fight in an empty house. She knows nothing about AGW and I can assure all that there was no debate in the UK about it 15 years ago. The Aussies are away ahead of the Brits (see the article in The Scotsman by Sir Alan Peacock re Lord Moncton in Oz) in debating this. Yet to start here.
I wish to apologise to all Australians. First we send you Liddell and then Amos. The wonder is that you are not yet a republic.
The Globe and Mail is carrying this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
Henry chance,
I can’t find any other references to your Trenberth quote on Google.
Given the drought in Colorado in 2002 it wouldn’t be surprising that he felt that way, but I don’t see any documentation that he ever said anything like that.
What I found quite un-nerving, watching a BBC news item earlier in the week, was that not only do they still not question some of the core “evidence” of CAGW but that they now flat out refuse to take any blame for the consequences of their support.
Let me explain … The article in question covered ..
1) Many people may not be able to pay their spiralling energy bills in the near future.
2) The UK could be subject to frequent power outages in the near future.
The un-nerving part …
At no point did the BBC link either event to ..
1) Thieves creating a 100 Billion a year “fantasy carbon market” (without a single ppm reduction in CO2) thereby sending prices through the roof.
OR..
2) EU rules mandating the closure of core UK power stations and the greenshirts preventing the building of replacements (until of course panic sets in with the politicos (see Gordon “Flat Earth” Brown going Nuke!) ).
The BBC has long been a key player in promoting the benefits of higher fuel prices and no fossil fuels for generation. As the fantasy falls apart and reality sets in …. do I get the feeling that they are now trying to suggest that they played no part in this current UK CF? (this is a strong warning to the US – you are next)
I know the belief is that the “public” has the memory of a Goldfish, and that may be true, but I will be doing my very best to remind those fish that the BBC has been core in creating this situation and that the national razor awaits the Bong Clutching Co-operative.
Long past time that the BBC joined the free market. After all … can’t watch TV if there is no electricity .. can ya?
The article was a summary of the BBC TV News at 6pm item and as you can see
both the pollster and Prof Bob Watson (DEFRA) were able to pass comment.
There was no skeptic viewpoint in this package. I’m sure Piers Corbyn or
Benny Peiser or Lord Lawson would have been available if asked.
For all the good it will do I have reported the bias of the item to the BBC
on-line complaints department – don’t hold your breath.
A rare breed BBC skeptic,
Jeef says:
February 6, 2010 at 2:10 am
@ur momisugly Jack Hughes (01:40:37) :
“The AGWers have Climate Munchhausen’s Syndrome”
Surely you meant Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy…
You owe me a new keyboard!
OT, Australia signs an agreement to supply China with 30 million tonnes of black death rocks a year for 20 years. Shouldn’t Rudd be leaving that in the ground?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8501777.stm
First thing this morning …a couple inches of new winter snow in Cleveland….checke cable: DC a lot more…go to WUWT…a crazy BBC poll and a disappointing post by Anthony? – phew, blow off some steam and go shovel.
The ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ interchanging and/or mixed meaning drives me nuts and here it is on WUWT. Very disappointing.
My answers:
Global Warming (GW)? – unanswerable as no time frame posed;
Climate Change (CC)/Man Made (MM) – agree with the trend;
CC/not proven MM – agree with the trend;
CC/Enviro MM – unanswerable, some enviro positions are reasonable;
CC not happening – disagree with the trend – alarming.
As a result of the lack of differentiation between (A)GW and CC what this post shows is that the public will be probably never have a real chance to be adequately informed or questioned on climate matters and therefore the politicians will have a larger opportunity to screw with them. And on it goes….shoveling and other chores….I see tomorrow will be clear.
My best to Anthony & WUWT and hopes that everyone can work more to help clear up the debates.
Peter Plail (04:30:04) :
“vukcevic (02:05:04) :
Thanks for showing that information. I can’t help thinking that the difference between the summer and winter trends might be man made.”
I am not sure I would agree with that, on the other hand I am not climatologist, and I look at these matters from purely technical point of view.
The bottom half of the graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
now shows de-trended temp changes (upward trend removed from the data). It is obvious that both summer and winter temperatures show similar natural oscillations (sometime in phase and sometime out of phase – that is another story) plus linear (but different) upward trends, which I think are due to a slow recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This well corresponds with plenty of the anecdotal evidence of the very cold winters (frozen Thames etc), but very little about unusually cool summers.
More temps graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
Can we not simply call them `catastrophists`?
I was going to point out that 59% don’t believe global warming is happening and it’s manmade, but the results of the “Which of These Statements is Closest to your View” poll add up to over 100%.
OT: A local community college where I sometimes teach showed “Not Evil, Just Wrong” on Thursday.
I think the title of this film shows a real difference between the true believers and the skeptics. How many of the true believers believe skeptics are evil? The true believers seem to believe that if you don’t believe what they believe, then you must be evil or stupid. It never occurs to them that there are legitimate reasons for scepticism.
3×2 (07:38:53)
Re: “1) Thieves creating a 100 Billion a year “fantasy carbon market” (without a single ppm reduction in CO2) thereby sending prices through the roof.”
I think that you may have missed something about position of the BBC on AGW.
From: http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”
Remember that phrase: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”
From: http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx
Members of the IIGCC includes:
BBC Pension Trust
To be a bit more specific as to the BBC involvement:
From: http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1440290/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment
”
Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00
Categories: Investment
Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.
IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
”
Did you catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”
The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme.
Recall: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”
So the IIGCC chairman (the BBC) are “calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand”
And the BBC is using “their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors” to achieve the goals of the group.
Why are you surprised that the BBC is doing exactly what they have committed to do?
OT but my grandson reading economics at Exeter Uni reports that yesterday at Exeter St. Davids station half the Labour Cabinet arrived including the arch loonies Hilary Benn, Milliband and Bradshaw .
Visiting the Hadley Centre to plot the way forward perhaps?
Encouragingly they travelled by train. Less so they then used a fleet of 4x4s and limos for the rest of the journey!!
vibenna (23:50:41) : This was why I was on about the UAH data showing strong warming. Whatever the cause, it is clearly occurring over the last 30 years. So that 25% is denying some fairly clear empirical facts. Unless of course it is all within the bounds of natural variation.
Re: What deniers of climate change are really denying
Link @ur momisugly ScientistForTruth (04:59:39) See Above
1. “Control is the key issue for the deniers of climate change control over the way we live and how we use the world’s resources. ”
2. “Climate change threatens our narcissistic omnipotence. Deniers do not want anyone else telling them they can’t drive large cars or run two refrigerators. They want to hold on to the belief that not only does mother earth have unlimited resources but that these resources should remain entirely within their control.”
3. “This is a mentality resembling the narcissism of small children who want to hold onto their illusion of omnipotence and control over mother. Any threat to their position is experienced as a narcissistic wound that is tolerable only to the extent that their attachment to mother is relatively secure. “
I find the above quotes interesting. I had noticed during the last US Prez campaign, that the political party that supports AGW used an interesting tactic. That is to accuse your opponent of your own faults. This does two things, shifts the focus to your opponent, and inhibits them from making accurate accusations against you, for the opponent will look silly saying, ‘No, that’s not me, it is you’.
Looking at:
#1. Deniers of nature think they are controlling climate.
#2. Only deniers of nature have a sense of omnipotence over nature.
#3. Only deniers of nature have a delusion of omnipotence over nature.