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:
Before you all get carried away, remember that in February 2003, 80% of the British population were against the war in Iraq. And look what happened then. (The irony is that we went to war in Iraq to bring them democracy!)
Most of us know the truth. Unfortunately, I just received a formletter from Senator Dianne Feinstein telling me, basically, that the IPCC has solid science backing up man made global warming. She seems committed in her ignorance to push cap and trade.
It’s disturbing how out of touch a Senator can be.
How does the agw percentage compare to the percentage of people who believe they were abducted by aliens? (they wouldn’t take me: said I was a “poor specimen”)
Funny quote:
“If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?” Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Science, February 5, 2010
The latest gate has just been opened:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
“Even the mildest critics of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri might now be moved to observe that they have eschewed uncertainty, to project the most pessimistic scenario imaginable – with no scientific support and a great deal of embellishment. After “Climategate”, “Glaciergate”, “Amazongate” and now “Africagate” can either survive?”
First, the advocates of AGW said that there is a overwhelming “consensus” of scientists that have studied and that support that global warming is totally man made. Then when 6000 scientists signed a petition saying that there is no consensus, they said the “science is settled.” Now, after this BLOG and others opened the multiple “gates” that allowed the flood of truth to wash away the “real dirt” in the IPCC report and have revealed dishonesty at CRU from their own e-mails, the AGW’s are using a favored trick in politics. Let’s poll the people who don’t know anything about the climate change (global warming) for their opinion by selecting questions that do not mean anything and by providing fuzzy alternative answers. A consensus of poll opinions that favor global warming is worth more than open evaluations performed by people with scientific knowhow.
From the BBC poll 64% either believe global warming is man totally made or believe that it maybe totally man made. Only 10% really understand there is significant doubt in the IPCC position. The use of climate instead of global warming was selected because it is cold outside and that would bias the results. From this poll the warmists must have a warm fuzzy feeling because only 10% of those polled really understand that the IPCC position lacks credibility. The sad point is that it is going to take a more time and a lot of educational effort to undo the position taken by the advocates of AGW that global warming is totally man made. We really can not expect any help from the mainstream television media or newspapers and magazines. They have invested 15 years in convincing the public that AGW is real and true.
Is trurh in climate science without hope? Well, look at how far the participants in the BLOGs have carried the debate. How much work (unfunded) the BLOG masters have done to keep us informed. For example WUWT has had 34,834,276 hits. I’ll bet any media outlet welcome that much interest in their opinion. Also See Ridley’s article on Bishop Hill.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/4/spectator-article-now-online.html
Why? Because people can read and comprehend on the BLOGs that the “science is not settled”, that there is not an overwhelming consensus of support for man made global warming, and the debate is intellectually open for the most part in a spirit of inquiry. No one controls the BLOGs. The architects of the IPCC position have shot themselves in the foot by lying, by being disingenuous and by wanting to control the science of climate to falsely shore up their position. The media will not be able to use the usual cast of characters to defend IPCC position because they can’t be trusted. They approved the IPCC report and gave it validity. Therefore, this BLOG and others like it need to continue fight for intellectual openness and honesty about the climate. We need to support them in this effort. They do this because they love truth.
Andrew30 (10:22:55) :
“
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
“
Me too, I’ve got a deferred BBC pension from 25 years ago and am fast approaching retirement:
AGW is real and is much worse than we thought. We need to act last week before it’s too late.
Hang on, wait a minute, the government has guaranteed the pension. That is if they have enough money left to pay it:
AGW? Baahh!
and still all three traditional parties think they can the win next election by ignoring the 74% who did not agree that global warming is established and mostly man made.
Kate (11:03:00) :
‘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
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…’
How can Australia pass an ETS bill while exporting all this coal to China? It is hypocritical and exactly the same, albeit on a different scale, as N.Z. is doing. Where is the logic or morality in this? Tax Australians for emitting greenhouse gasses but export coal to China so that it can. I ask you. Where the hell is the Prime Minister at?
Mick
“View from the Solent (10:12:15) :
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.”
I find this quite interesting, and a new factoid to ponder, thanks. However, I was responding to someone who was asking about how many humans were on Earth which are generally considered to be multi-cell organisms, mind you there are some, failed presidential candidates and smutty novelists and the like, who seem incapable of sharing a single cell of honesty between them.
Just a thought in the light of the BBC pole would it be helpful to give a bit of fresh exposure to the Government petition regarding CRU Climategate that you ran a few months back.
The skeptic caused is aided by pathetic stories on the front page of the Independent today which implies that $100,000 funding from ExxonMobil renders skeptics ‘conspirators’.
It might be better journalism to list funding by warmers (HM Treasury for starters) against funding by others to see how much the warmers get. Run a story saying ‘Warmers got £1bn grants since 1990 to hype global warming’?
ExxonMobil are allowed to fund research. As is NOAA.
It’s not a crime, you know, to fund research.
I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones,
Read the comments.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
This account in the London Telegraph about FOIA requests being denied regarding the role of a METO scientist who apparently ignored reviewer input stating over some claims were being overplayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Met Office blocked role of leading scientist in climate change row
The Meteorological Office is blocking attempts to reveal the role played by its top climate scientist in a controversial report on climate change.
Published: 9:45AM GMT 07 Feb 2010
Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s director of Climate Science, was involved in publishing claims in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have been heavily criticised.
However, the Government has endorsed moves to prevent Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with IPCC colleagues in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary whose department has responsibility for the Met Office, personally supported the suppression of these documents.
Prof Mitchell is said to have dismissed concerns over contentious statements made in early drafts of the IPCC report and included them in the final version.
These included the headline that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years and a graph that showed a steep rise of temperatures in the 20th century.
Official IPCC reviewers cited other scientific papers that argued the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7178430/Met-Office-blocked-role-of-leading-scientist-in-climate-change-row.html
Also in the same section http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/, claims that Pachi flew 500,000 miles in a year.
and Sir David King criticises climate scientists for ‘overstating’ the risks of global warming.
King has no shame following so close to his claims of foreign powers et al re. climategate.
So, he (Black) tells us how we are all so confused (or he is, by the results) because the northern hemisphere has had its warmest January in a while, and the ocean heat content is pretty high. So why is it so damned cold by any measure that counts? Oh, I forgot – Global Warming Causes Global Cooling…
Seriously, though, I am actually a bit concerned. A few degrees change in temperature in the negative direction – where it matters at ground/level where-people-are – is a serious issue. Keeping warm is a lot harder than dealing with warmer temperatures, which can usually be made quite tolerable and comfortable with a change in behaviour and basic elements of living.
Warmer is, on the whole, better for mankind and a multitude of species (fora and fauna). Colder, on the other hand, is going to make things quite uncomfortable. In other words, all this global warming that the doomsayers have been warning us of is actually a good thing – “Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Buying lottery tickets puts you at the precipice of the pit of money!”
Wow, passionate comment after comment after comment :|!
It’s difficult to give a definitive answer, even as an environmental writer, because the proof given simply doesn’t give any kind of real definition.
I remember reading over the Copenhagen summit website, and the comments were full of thought-provoking, unquestionable material proving facts that point towards the ice-mass on earth increasing and man-made climate-change having a very limited impact on the earth.
It’s good that we are starting early though; most of the methods that today are pushing towards a healthier environment save money, time and effort in the long-run, and will benefit the world as a whole for years to come.
I can only wince at the idea of the massive species-wide effort to halt climate change being at best pre-mature… if it happens, the world will be worse off than it was before, simply beause people won’t trust politicians, scientists or world-leaders for a long time to come.