Excerpts from the New York Times article.
Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?
Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.
And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.
“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”
Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions.
And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.
…
“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”
The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.
…
In a telephone interview, Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.
“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.” Indeed, once Mr. Cameron became prime minister, he vowed to run “the greenest government in our history” and proposed projects like a more efficient national electricity grid.
…
In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.
“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.
It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.
…
The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.
========================
Read the complete story here
I would like to propose that every time someone gets an alarmist story in the media, they and the organisation they represent gets a point.
Each week the names of the people and organisations in descending order of points will be published. If they retract their story the point will be deducted. After a year the points for their stories will be halved.
The intention of this is to ensure that the people at the top of the list are unlikely to receive futher funding for their alarmist work. Perhaps the people doing the funding should get points as well.
We can be blinded by self interest and faith, also we can be blinded by doubt and cynicism.
Keeping an open mind is hard.
“Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.”
Their science is so bad and the case so irrational that they have to prep and indoctrinate their supporters to try to hold their ground.
‘“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” [Nicolas Stern] said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.”’
That’s a dangerous place to be. They’ll get stranded when the tide cuts them off.
So many alarmists jumped on to this particular bandwagon that they trampled it to death. The public recognise incredible claims when they hear them.
A more serious scientific issue concerns the irresponsible use of modelling. Models are very useful tools when used properly. Climate scientistist have demonstrated very clearly that if you don’t understand the basic science then you shouldn’t broadcast the incorrect model output implications from every rooftop.
” Wren says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”
You are indeed correct. The only thing that will stop CAGW is the earth cooling naturally.
Will that stop the billions of dollars worth of bought and paid for alarmist “scientific” research and the PR juggernaut to promote further alarmism? I doubt it. If the coldest and longest winters on record can be safely ignored by those screaming “THE WORLD IS BURNING UP!!!” then nothing will. Only a few years ago we were told that Scotland’s skiing industry would be dead. This year is set to be the longest skiing season on record.
Yeah, that is an entirely subjective and singular example which proves nothing. BUT, how come the alarmists can point to any single, subjective example of weather and claim it is proof of climate change when it suits them? But they cannot accept any equal piece of subjective evidence that runs counter to the “warming meme”?
The ice is melting = catastrophic change… The ice is recovering and doing so really quickly = irrelevant!
It is that sort of hypocrisy that is weakening the “so-called scientific” case for CAGW.
The simple truth is that worldwide the interest in global warming has been decreasing since around 2007 and whilst I’d like to think it was something special in the British psyche, the fact is that we are just appear to be following the worldwide trend.
It boils down to this: the public were fascinated by the new idea that mankind could be heating the globe to the extent that it would cause real changes. So, the public were lapping up every bit of news about what climate change could do . But after we’ve learnt that a few species we didn’t know existed before we were told they are threatened by a bit of warming might go the way of many other species that we never knew existed …And after we’ve realised that our own homes will never get flooded by rising sea levels, … and we’ve been watching our own local weather long enough to know that any change is going to be so small as to be unnoticeable in our own area.
…Basically when we’ve heard everything that anyone can tell us about global warming and it still means the kids can go to school, our workplaces won’t be flooded etc. etc. we all realise this is a none problem. Interesting perhaps, … well perhaps not now that all the stories just seem to be the same dull repetitive eco-claptrap.
Come on we’ve all seen it before in bird flu, swine flu, sars, MMR, salmonella in eggs, millennium bug. The press build up the story, the public lap it up, the stories get wilder and wilder in an ever more vicious cycle to sensationalise the story, and finally as the public realise that no one is actually dying (more than usual and only those with underlying conditions) and the needed press coverage to continue public interest clearly begins to look ridiculous, the press go off the story and start finding something else to interest their readers.
That is why the guardian and bbc are so angry with the “bad media skills” of the climategate scientists. These eco-zealots in these organisations needed the scientists to squeeze every last bit of sensationalism from the evidence. The real truth of Climategate is that it revealed a scientific community struggling to fit the needs of media groups like the BBC and guardian for sensationalism to the scientific reality of the data. It showed the truth of scientific doubt behind the media lie of absolute certainty.
But the stupid thing is the public already knew the guardian and bbc were egging the organic-sour-millet-freetrade-green-pudding
The thing to watch now is the re-invention of, reasons we need to revise our way of life with a new super-duper whizz bang economic barter system. A New world economy that will still enrich the Al Gores, the Soros’s and magically appear to solve the worlds economic fate. Don’t mind of course that this new world order will begin by transferring any rights we had at all to our governments, god bless them, who will then pay homage to the UN and duly deliver your savings, your kids heritage, and most if not all your food allowance to needy UN diplomats to hold bigger parties, grant indulgences to their rich mates and receive even larger kickbacks to bulk up their retirement funds.
Of course the Melbourne Age being the leftist bastion for the so called intelligentsia will still bleat that we should also give away the shirt off our backs to expunge some mysterious guilt complex “they think” we Australians should have for standing shoulder to shoulder with our mates and fighting for the rights of the world.
Such a pity for their agenda, that its raining so hard and its so cold, that most of us could do with some warming,( if we could only afford the inflated cost of those commodities) caused by the threat of CAGW.
I liked that quote, It so much sums up our present political climate in Australia!!
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” (They wish!!)
Keep up the good work guys! Those with agenda won’t let a “gravy train” opportunity slip away so easily.
Oh, and the other reason for the poll falls might be found through alarm fatigue. If you blame all things on global warming then soon enough ordinary people shrug their shoulders, laugh at the idea in their local bar and say to themselves “this can’t possibly be so.”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Lack of public support will only cause CAGW to go underground.
In Norway, the Prime Minister has appointed a shadow-PM to take care of affairs while he is out there dishing out billions to various funds and lobbying for carbon trading.
We never hear anything until “another success” is announced, meaning that another few billion kroner has been wasted to bribe corrupt logging companies into non-logging. No one seems to protest.
So as the voter loses interest and the media loses interest, the show still goes on behind the scenes, even more fervent in its unchecked craziness than before.
What we need is a “big jolt”, which in economic theory is an event which brings the whole system out of balance, for it to eventually settle in a new mode of operation. Several small nudges just won’t do the trick.
We need a climategate x 10.
My goodness, when one resorts to referring to an economist as a chief climate expert, as one does a mulit-millionaire railway engineer (& economist), then the science has had it! What’s the old saying, “opinions are like belly buttons, every body has one, & they’re all different!”
I sometimes think that never grows so red the rose
as where some buried caesar bled
that every hyacinth the garden wears
dropped in her lap, from some once lovely head.
Oh, and the Met Office’s failed forecasts. Oh, and ……
”Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ …
Infantile is right.
Educated people have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Trying to tar educated people who have actually bothered to read some of the material on offer as “flat earthers” is infantile in the extreme.
I can prove the earth is round in multiple ways, very easily. I don’t need to though, since everyone knows it is.
Only an infantile fool would think that climate sceptics are at that level.
If it wasn’t for the efforts of the BBC (Brussels Broadcasting Corporation!) and especially it’s chief lemmings Roger Harrabin and Justin Rowlatt then the support would probably fall to the couple of percent of lefty greens.
However, as was made clear in a BBC Radio 4 Analysis yesterday (24th May), there are many people who claim that ‘global warming is too important to be left to democracies to solve – we need dictatorial powers to make the public do waht we say must be done’. Very scary given the acces these people have to money and power.
“If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?”
It’s because of all wot I wrote over the past two years !! 🙂
Cap’n Jack, you are very smart for a pirate! Life at sea has taught you a lot.
Julie Woods says:
May 25, 2010 at 12:48 am
Capn Bob and erficbob,
Did you hear that chilling item on BBC Radio 4 last night? “Experts” were saying that it’s time to forget democracy and just impose climate-change limitations. Governments have to take a lead. People are too short-sighted and thick….
The reporter “Isn’t this a bit like facism? Aren’t you talking like an eco-facist?”
“Expert” — “Ho ho ho, yes I’ve been called that, ha ha ha. But this is SERIOUS. It’s about SAVING THE WORLD.”
_________________________________________________________________________
It has always been about a totalitarian government (global governance). Just google two of the leaders Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller. You can include the Master Spinmeister too, Stan Greenberg, who helped get Tony Blair and Bill Clinton elected among others.
Nice to see the NYT catching up ….
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/05/fading-away.html
As the Arctic continues it’s decline and the North west passage opens up to regular transit people will no longer have a choice about the occurance of Global warming.
Mooloo says: May 25, 2010 at 2:36 am
Educated people have known for thousands of years that the earth is round.
Unfortunately, it is the educated people who do not live by the sea who would have been the most likely to believe the earth is flat. Anyone who lives by the sea is a aware that boats disappear over the horizon – and this effect would be more apparent to the ancients! in their smaller boats. All sailors would have been aware that coastlines disappear and this effect is all the greater the smaller the boat This is because in a small boat the horizon is all that much closer as short as a couple of miles for a rower in an open boat.
So two fishermen sitting in small boats may be unable to see each other when they are as close as four miles away … even on a flat calm sea … until they stand up or hoist a sail! Lights in coastal houses would disappear “over the horizon” around 10miles out to sea or along the coast. So it is beyond belief to think that anyone in a small boat travelling more than 20 miles would not know the “downward slope of the horizon” at distance.
Up to 50miles and only the highest mountain tops would be visible along a flat horizon and more than 70miles and even the highest features of 1000m mountains would disappear.
Popular culture is starting to catch on!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjUDJqCuIB4&hl=nb_NO&fs=1&]
I don’t know about the rest of you, but the mental image of dozens of glum-faced, hand-wringing, New World Order-wanting, freedom-hating, lefty-loving, watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), all meeting together in a hall in London, and fretting that Joe Public simply ain’t buying their snake-oil any more, is quite frankly, deliciously funny.
Yes what I said is infantile, but it’s oh so gratifying B) , and why can’t I/we have a bit of fun at their expense every now and then? 🙂
Getting serious for a moment though, we all still need to keep an eye on these slippery buggers – they’re getting desperate now, and will stop at nothing to get their way. It’s up to us to keep asking all the awkward questions, point out the flaws in their thinking and logic, and to smash all the FUD they keep producing with unassailable, awkward facts.
Regards.
They are The Annointed.
How dare you question them?
Correction : How VERY dare you!
😉