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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The beginning of the end, or rather the beginning of the truth coming to light, of this so-called settled science was when the popular name of it changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
That’s a rhetorical tactic called framing the debate. Science is based on empirical evidence, repeatable results, and hypothetical predictions which either confirm or falsify the hypothesis. The bottom line is that much of the empirical evidence is less than what I’d call robust and enough of the hypothetical predictions were so wrong as to put the hypothesis in grave doubt. Rather than discard or modify the hypothesis (man-made CO2 causing greenhouse warming amplified by positive feedback from increased water vapor) when the predictions failed they retained the hypothesis and reframed the prediction of “global warming” into “climate change”. Now the only way to falsify the hypothesis is for the climate to not change. A pretty safe prediction since it opens the door to cherry picking weather events and calling them climate events instead.
The public aren’t idiots and even if they don’t understand the science or the methods they understand when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
An earlier poster beat me to it, but I just wanted to reiterate that the climate will do what the climate will do, and no amount of PR will change that.
As someone who doesn’t buy the alarmist panic I have to wonder if some of the vitriolic urgency on the alarmist side right now is because they want to take credit for the declining temperatures of the next few decades. Had they won this battle in 2000 and gotten severe CO2 limitations in place you’d better believe there would be no hiding of declines today… they would be celebrating them.
Wren
CAGW exists only in people’s minds, so yes it can be stopped by public opinion.
The BBC is in a world of hurt.
Don’t they have all their pensions tied up in global warming scam stocks?
jcrabb
Please draw on the map the best route through the ice.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
I’m having a tough time finding it.
Professor Steffen – at the Australian Davos Connection’s Future Summit:-
”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?’ …”
This comment shows we’ve got the CAGW crowd on the back-foot again, I think, and this is the last hiding place for the whole ridiculous scam.
Providing we keep pushing forward the sceptical arguments on natural climate variability, it won’t be long now before the whole edifice collapses.
Long may it RIP!
Once again we have to feel sorry for the poor polar bears as victims of
climate change. The BBC has a report on a study out of Canada that
models bear behavior in a stressed enviornment.
They went to a model because the real data was too spotty for them
to do much with:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8700000/8700472.stm
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW) Report:
Healing the Rift.
…-
“Myles Allen is the head of the climate dynamics group at University of Oxford’s atmospheric, oceanic and planetary physics department”
“So we have a real opportunity here. Will Cameron and Chris Huhne just keep on pushing for “meaningful and binding commitments” in Cancun? Or will they use those friendly invitations from Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Hu Jintao to say: “That didn’t work, did it? Here’s a better idea…””
“New climate solutions could heal the rift over Copenhagen
Will the new prime minister, David Cameron, open the floor to new proposals – such as mandatory carbon sequestration?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/may/24/climate-solutions-copenhagen-coalition
instead of being worried about global warming we should be trying to fix up the man made polution of our rivers and land and air ,but the scientists see that there is not the big grants in land polution , the so called global warming is where the big bucks are, sad but that is the world we live in the mighty doller rules .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Isn’t it interesting how many polls are being conducted to follow public opinion on this issue. I would have thought that these governments who usually ignore the wishes of the ‘common people’, and armed with a so-called concensus among the experts would feel justified in proceeding with AGW policy. And yet they keep such a close eye on us to see whether we are accepting it or not.
Strange………
To extend on a thought, this, I can tell you, without a word or a lie:
Buying a ticket in the lottery tommorow MAY result in SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC GAINS for you.
Unlikely. But possible.
The same as Anthropogenic Climate Change MAY (Insert bad thing here….)
Thanks to Speedy, at Jo Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/this-is-so-not-over/
Wren says:(May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm)
“Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”
Good, because warmer is better.
jcrabb says:(May 25, 2010 at 3:38 am)
“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.”
Good, because warmer is better.
p.s. Notice one reference is to CAGW and the other just plain old Global warming.
Does jcrabb know the difference?
Gareth Phillips says: May 25, 2010 at 1:02 am
As a gardener in the UK I have observed no signs of warming.
Try doing a plot of airfrost days in UK – the decline is obvious
for a starter here is a blinker image 1961-90 cf 1971-2000 snow days in uk from met office Add http:// to image url:
img690.imageshack.us/img690/9668/daysofsnowlyinguk.gif
Here is one from alaska it is just a record of dates – no tweaking possible.
Nenana (alaska) river ice breakup date:
img72.imageshack.us/img72/8913/nenanaco2tsi.png
jcrabb says:
May 25, 2010 at 3:38 am
As has happened before, it will happen again: Alarmists will herald balmy open-water come-one/come-all to the NW Passage.
Many fools will attempt it and perish. Some will be rescued, some will not. Canada will be forced to issue warnings that fall on deaf ears as the ignorant rush in.
A consensus of scientists, even very clever scientists, who have not audited the data and methods of the IPCC adds almost nothing to the credibility of the IPCC results. Some may be supporting fellow scientists perceived to be under attack. Others may believe the published findings to be in accord with their own environmental notions. Science is about collecting and analyzing data. Those scientists who responded to poll questions about work they had not audited should be embarrassed to have done so. What would be convincing is to have a body of skeptical scientists given all of the data, programs, and methods and to charge that body with replicating the work and establishing its credibility. If the IPCC supporters have faith in their product they should be eager to get on with it.
When will pollsters get it through their thick skulls that the questions about whether or not climate change or global warming “is happening” are nonsensical? Climate change is a given – it’s like asking if people believe the earth is spinning or not, and the question about warming makes no sense without context, because without that, the correct answer is “it depends”.
It’s good to see that the doubts in the public about man’s responsibility for warming or climate change are climbing though, despite the confused and confusing questions of pollsters. A confluence of factors are responsible for the rising doubts, meaning that this rising tide of doubt is pretty much unstoppable. Further, doubt leads to people educating themselves, since among the factors is the MSM itself having over-hyped CAGW/CC to the degree that they are no longer seen as credible sources of information. Here in the U.S. it will contribute to a number of climate-change legislation supporters being ousted this November.
All good news, but as has been pointed out the fight will continue, and we can only look forward to it becoming even nastier.
If any one is hoping that David Cameron and the Tories will deliver us from this global warming travesty, think again. Like Ponteus Pilot, Cameron has washed his hands of the responsibility. He has made his Liberal Democratic coalition partners responsible with the appointment of Chris Huhne as Energy and Climate Change Secretary. The Lib Dems are even more barmy about climate change than New Labour and Chris Huhne is among the most radical within the Lib Dem party and passionately opposes practical solutions for our energy shortfall, such as building new nuclear capacity. Economically, we don’t stand a chance of recovery with these idiots in power.
“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.”
In other words, politicians don’t care what the people think. Cram any crap down their throats as long as it increases the power and the wealth of the government.
I really love the mantra: “The science is settled”. That’s the kind of catchy phrase that any “good” movement needs to help push an agenda that’s simply not true. History is full of them, especially the period of the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Wouldn’t a “a more efficient national electricity grid” be a good thing?
The reason for the realism that has hit Jo and Josephine public, is because it was the web wot won it?
Sites like this one and Climate Audit, to name but a few, allowed information to be dissemminated to any one interested.
Sites like Comment is Free if you agree and UnReal Climate had/have no answer to the questions raised about the dodgy science so what do they do? Censor.
The web is to the defeat of global warming alarmism as printing was to the emancipation of the people.
Tom in Florida says: (May 25, 2010 at 4:59 am)
“Good, because warmer is better.”
I agree. Go back 13,00 years when the glaciers were receding from North America and see if the people living at that time were upset that the globe was warming. Do you think they stopped burning their fires because it was perceived to be warming the planet and they would rather have it cold? Can you imagine the panic when they realized the glaciers were receding and creating the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes? How they must of cried. But it was too late for them, it was irreversible. Too bad their politicians weren’t strong enough and had enough cute little catch phrases to save the glaciers. The glaciers are completely gone now, as are the mammoths and various other species. And look what’s happened to the human population since then! What a catastrophe!
What the promoters of catastrophic AGW fail to realize is that legitimacy has always rested with the skeptics.
The public is just now figuring realizing this.
Man made warming has been a plus, plus for politicians. They have enjoyed political contibutions and support from organizations and support by bringing “alternative” energy projects into their districts. The cost of these projects and their ineffectiveness has been lost in the multi-trillion dollar budgets.
As carbon taxes became closer to reality and the specter of huge increases in gasoline, gas, oil and the cost of rising energy content of everything we buy become apparent, people are now paying attention and are not ready to accept these assertions as facts. People arround the world are looking at the failed premise of man-made warming, the distortions and fabrications necessary to support it and the abject failure of technologies that are touted as the answer to the imagined problem. The theory of large scale warming from fossil fuel usage is an unproved theory with no basis in science, history or common sense. The “solutions” offered for this imagined problem if imposed and carried out perfectly cannot make any measurable change to the perceived problem. We need real energy. we can have cleaner air using natural gas, clean coal and utilizing the cleanest energy of all, nuclear. The only way to keep us free of foreign oil is to develop domestic sources. The United States has more energy resources than any other country in the world by far. Choking off these resources and forcing improtation of energy is a plan that endangers our economic and military security as well as that of the entire world.
We cannot accept the incompetence and distortions of politicians any longer. We need real solutions to real problems and cannot afford to continue to spend hundreds of billions on pretend solutions to imaginary problems.
“Hockeystickler says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:42 pm
last winter was the coldest in britain since 1963, that was a big influence : they’re changing their minds there. stevengoddard – you’re right in your assertion : freezing temperatures can do that.”
But you see at the same time as people in Britain were having a severe winter, and the USA was having ‘snowmageddon’ and cattle were dying in huge numbers in Mongolia – we were being repeatedly told that this was one of the warmest Jan-Feb in human history. This is the opposite of “face validity” and was not the third cry of “WOLF!!” but about the 97th.
Climate ‘scientists’ can wave all the peer reviewed papers they want saying its getting hot – in front of someone watching their cattle die in the cold – and all it does is lessen belief in climatology and science in general.
Most people I know didn`t trust the what the “scientists” said about global warming anyway, though many embraced popular suspicion that mankind`s activities were doing wierd things to the weather. With a bit of education on the decline in Atlanitic hurricane landfalls, and the science of solar driven temeperature change and weather events, all have now abandonded the notion that we can do much to change the weather, and are happily getting on with matters to them. Just a few more monkeys and we`ll reach that magic 100 number.