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:
Meanwhile…while the battle goes on for the hearts and minds of the people between the AGW believer and deniers, February continues the trend of 2010 as being the warmest year on record. February temps way above those of any other February (globally). See:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
At all levels of the troposphere, from sea level up to 46,000 ft. the temperature for February (and January 2010) up up up from past years.
@Will Hudson
“Our sole AGW proponent in the pub has just arrived back from a month in sunny Egypt with the astonishing news that “man-made global warming is proved. All the cold weather just proves that the actions following Kyoto have already had the effect of cooling the planet!””
That’s fine, then. We don’t need to change our current lifestyles? I note that CO2 is going up, and we certainly aren’t cutting it, so I wonder what actions he’s thinking about. Perhaps it’s just warmists attending conferences that does it….?
@Mark
Either I misunderstand you or one of us has misread the results.
Climate change is happening but not proven to be man-made: 38%
Climate change is happening but that it is man-made is propaganda: 10%
Climate change is not happening: 25%
Total: 73%
@ict558
I’m not really sure of your point. I’m saying that the number of those who are still convinced about AGW (i.e. have no doubts, or believe ‘the science is settled’) is around the same as the number of ‘core left’ voters, who are attracted to this set of ideas for other reasons. I suggest there is a link: those who aren’t already inclined towards these ideas for ulterior reasons are now sceptical to one degree or another. I don’t see the relevance of IQ here.
Andrew30 (08:12:45) :
Thank you for that – you have done a little more research than I. I had just looked at the ECX. Patchy looks Positivity Pristine compared to the BBC. I apologise for my Bong Clutching Co-operative jibe. I obviously wasn’t cynical enough – a lesson I should have learned a long time ago where AGW is concerned.
Is it even possible to be too cynical where AGW is concerned? Can we have a WUWT poll?
OT but very worthwhile:
If you’re going to do good science, release the computer code too
…more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release
I see the New York Times has a article with the headline “Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry” and the first comment posted regrets that a more emphatic headline such as “No Wrongdoing on Mann’s Part yet found in alleged climate scandal” would be too wordy.
EU Referendum reports that another problem has been found in the IPCC documents … seems it will be available later today.
Toyota vs the IPCC: (Maybe lying is better than telling the truth?)
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/06/terence-corcoran-if-the-ipcc-were-toyota.aspx
Now if somebody would ask me is an opinion poll:
”Do you think Global Warming is taking place”
I would probably answer “No”, though I am well aware that Global Warming has been going on for about 150 years. The reason being that I know perfectly well that a “Yes” will actually be regarded as a “Yes” to the question:
”Do you think Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place”
To which I think the answer is much more likely to be “no” than “yes”.
I wonder how many of those who said “No” reasons like me?
skepticism has a fever
PhilW (23:42:03) :
OT- Electric Charge Can Change Freezing Point of Water.
Could this apply on a global scale?
Water is known to remain liquid 20-30F below freezing point in fine clays. It is thought to be a result of the Gibbs-Thomson effect (google it) which is used to explain extreme frost heaving. It may well be rather because of electric charges on clay particles.
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.
Don’t forget that it was only 0.28C for Dec 09 and the latest – Feb 02/10 it has dropped already to 0.67C. One raisin doesn’t make it a Christmas pudding.
I would be curious to know the state of Canada’s skepticism. Our public broadcaster has been a key player in spreading climate science misinformation. With all the recent news involving misuse of scientific funding the only news the CBC thought fit to print was a story about arctic ice thinning faster than expected!
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html
I would be curious if any Canadian readers have been cataloging CBC’s climate gaffs
Another day, another error: http://climategate.nl/2010/02/06/klimaa … r-koraal1/
IPCC, 4AR, WG2, Ch4:
‘Doubling CO2 will reduce calcification in aragonitic corals by 20%-60% (Kleypas et al., 1999; Kleypas and Langdon, 2002; Reynaud et al., 2003; Raven et al., 2005).’
The cited papers give a range of 0-35%.
The Netherlands Minister for the Environment rushed to the defense of the IPCC in an early stage. She now has egg on her face and is very cross — and that was before this story appeared this morning.
DIRK H
The kind of double sided solar panel I has in mind was the type used to heat water usually placed on roofs.
The difference this time is that it will collect radiation from the bottom as well.
As shown in the IPCC diagram the “back radiation” from the greenhouse gases is almost as strong as the full radiation from the Sun and should not be wasted.
I was under the impression that the IPCC was so worried about co2 in particular because it absorbed and transmitted in the infra red so the panel should be fine.
Such a device (which I will call the IPCC SOLAR PANEL) will collect the infra red from the top and also from the bottom as shown in the IPCC diagram.
Do I think it will work?
Frankly no,
But then I am reassured by the IPCC statement that “the Physics is incontovertable”
Ralph (01:34:13
A typical weasel-worded question from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, to increase the number of ‘yes’ answers. They asked:
“”Do you think Global Warming is taking place”” —
On second thoughts, this is the British general public. So how about:
“”Do you think Man-made Global Warming is taking place””
I agree
The mistreatment of the language is a travesty. Whole phrases are ‘coined’ to take on a special meaning that is destructive of the underlying meaning of the language itself. It is a means of confusing people. This technique is commonly used as a ‘group speak’ to marginalise people outside the group.
Wow, such poorly framed questions! They keep intermixing “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”. The two phrases have different meanings in the real world.
I liked the BBC’s Richard Black’s attempt to spin the poll:
“
More than half of respondents said they were aware of news stories about “flaws or weaknesses in climate science”.
But in this group, 16% said they were now more convinced of the risks of climate change, against only 11% who were less convinced; so if exposure to “ClimateGate” or “GlacierGate” or other such issues has done anything, it has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming.
“
I find it difficult to believe that ‘flaws or weaknesses in climate science’ has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming and can only assume that it has led some true believers to renew their vows.
wayne (05:40:26) :
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.
————————————————————–
On the right track, Wayne. I can’t put my finger on anything more recent right now, but Gold T. 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:6045-49, had a minimum estimate of 50% of biomass for bacteria. Nowadays, a 70% figure is widely accepted.
Wansbeck (10:07:56) :
“I liked the BBC’s Richard Black’s attempt to spin the poll:”
Perhaps he is worried about his upcoming pension.
(Andrew30 (08:12:45) )
Pachauri’s airmiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7165816/Rajendra-Pachauri-head-of-UN-climate-change-panel-clocks-up-half-a-million-miles-of-air-travel.html
“…. But in terms of my personal lifestyle, I’m very careful about not being consumptive in my habits.
“I’m careful about use of transport in my daily life.” ”
Especially when driving to work, eh Pachy?
This might explain China’s rejection of any sort of deal at Copenhagen:
Australia, China sign $60-billion coal deal
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article102174.ece
[Extract}
An Australian mining firm has signed a record $60-billion deal to supply coal to energy-hungry China for the next 20 years. The deal is the biggest-ever export contract in Australia’s history, said Clive Palmer, chairman of Resourcehouse, which will supply China Power International Development (CPI) with 30 million tonnes of coal every year… The country’s State-run firms have in the past year struck a number of deals with resource-rich Australia, which has become China’s biggest supplier of coal imports…
…China relies on coal for as much as 70% of its energy needs, and is the world’s biggest consumer of coal. Though the government has stepped up investments in renewable energy in recent years, it still accounts for only 7% of the country’s energy requirements. With soaring energy demands, China, in 2008, became a net importer of coal for the first time…
Strange, how Greenpeace protesters never have any demonstrations in China. They stopped the building of a clean coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth last year, while conveniently forgetting that China builds one of these power stations every four days. Then again, I don’t suppose Greenpeace activists find the phrase “Chinese gulag” very appealing either.
I can’t believe that many people said “Climate change is not happening.” Climate, by its very nature, must change! I think that shows how the media have co-opted “climate change” as a euphemism for “global warming.”
R. Gates (08:31:53) :
Out of interest I followed your link to the excellent applet and had a look at near surface temperatures.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
Hey, guess what I found at the bottom of the graph:
“The temperature on 04/02/2010 is 529.83 deg F cooler than the same day last year”
This does tend to make me suspicious of information on this site.
Honorable WUWT readers, please read how we Norwegians still are being brainwashed with scary climate scenarious:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?prev=no&hl=en&u=http://www2.uit.no/ikbViewer/page/nyheter/artikkel?p_document_id=170507
”I think it was a very impressive – but scary lecture.”
” To avoid serious problems with crops – especially in the areas of development, so we should keep warming below 2 ° C. But we have a time problem – we have to act soon. Calculations show that if we do nothing until 2015, so we must have a reduction in pollution at seven per cent – every year, to reach the goal of an increase of only 2 ° C.
Make the other hand, nothing by the year 2025, so he believes that the train has gone. Then there nothing.”
Robert W. Corell is an American climate scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell