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
Dave says:
May 25, 2010 at 8:48 am
Roger: great information. Where did you get the data for Carbon Trust etc handouts please?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/the_carbon_trust_accelerating.aspx
500,000 must leave the Governmental payroll in a bonfire of all the Labour Party’s vanities if we are to redress the deficit let alone the debt. Freedom for the people from jumped up jackanapes in all Departments will go some way to achieve this.
Wren said,
“Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”
Well Wren, I have found in my experience that the opinion of a well-educated public is very good at stopping completely imaginary government-invented hobgoblins from scaring people to death for no good reason.
Since the public is FINALLY becoming at least somewhat educated on the un-reality that is (hopefully soon to be was) CAGW, I fervently hope that public opinion will put a complete and total stop to it.
The world can only afford so much nonsense. Look at the economy of Spain, which has been almost single-handedly decimated by the complete myth of CAGW. Obviously it NEEDS to be stopped, and public opinion is a wonderful method of stopping it.
Now, if we could only come up with some REAL LEADERS who were willing to say, “I am not willing to make policy based upon the highly questionable inputs and outputs of “computer models”, I am only willing to make policy based upon SOUND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS” then we MIGHT have a bit more hope for the future.
Ahh, a man can dream….
“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.”
——–
A Times rep called Lewis, admitted the article was a fraud, and offered to publish his letter of rebuttal(the link below has a recording of the call).
http://public.me.com/skrap
I read Lewis refused the offer, but I don’t know why.
jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am
I’m not saying the Northwest passage is open at the moment, only during the Arctic Summer months.
The Northwest passage was succesfully navigated by a commercial cargo ship in 2008, no rescue required, in fact not even a ice cube was seen.
You must be a young college whelp. Do some more digging and you will find that the Passage has been open many times, all unrelated to CO2. Explain that with your naive view of history!
The North Marine Route was officially discovered by the crew of the British expedition under the leadership of Robert John McClure in 1850-1854 (this route was passed on two ships and partially – on foot over the ice from the west to the east).
For the first time this route was passed by water in 1903-1906 (from the east to the west) by the Norwegian expedition under the leadership of Roald Amundsen, on Gjoa, a sailing vessel with an engine. This was actually the discovery of the Northwest Passage.
This route was completely passed by water in the opposite direction (from the west to the east) by the Canadian crew under the guidance of Henry Larsen on a motor schooner “Saint Rock” in 1940-42.
In 1944 Henry Larsen sailed through the Northwest passage during one navigation period.
In 1977 for the first time Willi de Roos, Belgium, sailed through the Northwest Passage on yacht (solo and during one navigation).
It’s become very obvious over the last few weeks, that someone at Alarmist HQ has decreed that troops be mobilized to counter all discussion threads on t’internet. So suddenly we have all these people show up here.
But I have a suggestion, and it’s only a suggestion – I’m no expert in mob control. But my suggestion is that if you’re going to ask people to come over here to disagree with what’s being said, then try to recruit people who are clever, and who have something interesting and pertinent to say.
Otherwise, it’s just a bit silly.
Anu,
It has warmed about 1 degree C in the past 150 years. The slope of the warming BY ACTUAL OBSERVATION has completely flattened out and is possibly even reversing direction.
If CO2 is the main driver for warming, please explain to all of us here how the concentration of CO2 is still increasing in a relatively linear (although very slow) fashion, while the temperature has ceased to increase completely. I am sure we would all appreciate that explanation.
So far, for the 21st century, the slope of the “warming curve” is as close to ZERO as makes no nevermind, and we are 10 years in to the 21st century now. In order to get your 2 degrees C or 3 degrees C during the 21st century, you would need a warming curve slope of + 0.22 degrees per decade to +0.33 degrees per decade for the next 90 years.
From 1850-2000, the warming slope was 0.07 degrees per decade, and from 2000-2010 the warming slope is nil. Good luck with getting a warming slope that is 3 to 5 times steeper than the 1850-2000 slope… just ain’t gonna happen. Most “climatologists” will tell you it is perfectly possible. Most meteorologists (the sensible scientists) will tell you that we are quite likely to see a REVERSAL and see a negative slope for the next 30-40 years.
Wren saysMay 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:
“Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”
Why do you think man-made global warming would stop after a fraction of a degree increase?
Because there is no observational data, to date, that demonstrates the positive feedback (IPCC, 2007) by water vapor necessary to create greater than a 1.2 degree warming per 2X[CO2] (and the 1.2 is still in dispute).
Anu says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:26 am
Wren says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:12 am
I have already analyzed the evidence, and I am not alarmed. Global warming is occurring to slowly to adversely affect me. I , like most other adults today, won’t live long enough to be harmed by global warming.
Don’t be so pessimistic.
If you eat right, exercise, and get plenty of sleep, it’s possible you will live long enough to be harmed by global warming.
You should look into Resveratrol, too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/25/60minutes/main4752082.shtml
=====
I do eat right, drink wine, and exercise a lot. My health is excellent. But given my age now, I would have to live to be well over 100 years old to be adversely affected by global warming. While I would like to set a new age record for humans, I think that highly unlikely.
jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming comes into play when permafrost melt releasing Methane, which is starting to occur from the East Siberian sea. The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully.”
The truth however tells us that it is not melt release CH4 (aged) but young and biologically produced ch4 ie bacteria eg E Damm et al 2010
Abstract. A methane surplus relative to the atmospheric equilibrium is a frequently observed feature of ocean surface water. Despite the common fact that biological processes are responsible for its origin, the formation of methane in aerobic
surface water is still poorly understood. We report on methane production in the central Arctic Ocean, which was exclusively detected in Pacific derived water but not nearby in Atlantic derived water. The two water masses are distinguished
by their different nitrate to phosphate ratios. We show that methane production occurs if nitrate is depleted but phosphate is available as a P source. Apparently the
low N:P ratio enhances the ability of bacteria to compete for
phosphate while the phytoplankton metabolite dimethylsulfoniopropionate
(DMSP) is utilized as a C source. This was verified by experimentally induced methane production in DMSP spiked Arctic sea water. Accordingly we propose that
methylated compounds may serve as precursors for methane and thermodynamic calculations show that methylotrophic methanogenesis can provide energy in aerobic environments.
According to the Reuter’s article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N2Y620100524, Stern wants to plunder the pension funds
Pension funds must shift more capital into low-carbon energy to drive long-term returns, British academic Nicholas Stern told Reuters Global Energy Summit
Most people I know have been on holiday at least once to a mediterranean country, If you’ve never been you know someone who has. It’s often cheaper than holidaying at home in Britain. We know certain people love their computer models, these models have told the British public that we can look forward to –
LONG HOT MEDITERRANEAN SUMMERS and
MILD WET WINTERS
We know what a mediterranean summer is like.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml
The real world is not living up to the hype.
Anyways, paying for a new electric grid which would centralize and unify the source of your home, transportation, and production power needs, and then letting the Federal gov’t within 30 Astronomical Units of it is…it’s…I am trying to think of a word…
It’s infantile.
Right, so what do they teach kids in school these days?
As always I’m the optimist so I figure that people are now getting their heads around the fact that climate alarmism is real, just not that there’s anything alarming about the climate.
Wren says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:56 am
I would have to live to be well over 100 years old to be adversely affected by global warming.
Actually, you are far more likely to be adversely affected by global cooling, since 1) cooling is likely in the coming decades and 2) cooling is far more detrimental.
The Climate Optimum of some 5 – 9 kya was warmer and wetter than today. Think upon that word “optimum”. Perhaps, if man is lucky he will see another such period before plunging into the next ice age.
Wren says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:29 am
How to get two birds with one stone for future generations:
1. Tax coal – taxing coal would encourage more efficient use of this natural resource, thus reducing the impact of global warming on future generations
How do we use coal? We burn it. We burn it in huge buildings called “powerstations” whose efficiency is limited only by current technology. Tax would not increase the efficiency of these “powerstations”, only new technology will.
Another great usage of coal comes from the fact some people burn coal at home. This home is in what was former called “The Third World”. We call these people “Poor People”. The efficiency of their coal burning is limited by the efficiency of their stove. If we tax these “Poor People”, then they would have to spend more on their coal, and less on other things. Like better stoves. If we tax coal so much, that they don’t have enough to keep warm, then they will die. This will surely ensure that there are more coal reserves left.
Efficiency: Making “Poor People” die, so we can have more.
2. Apply the coal tax to the national debt – reducing the national debt would leave less debt for future generations to pay.
Wealth comes from production. If energy is more expensive, the production suffers. There is no nation in history that ever taxed itself to riches.
Anu says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:18 am
But as I asked: where’s the scientific papers describing the observation of catastrophic Global warming caused by runaway release of methane ?
Not just those computer models of the Permian extinction event. There’s plenty of papers on that. And it’s not absolutely clear that the methane hydrate ‘runaway greenhouse’ phenomenon actually occurred. You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.
Except they don’t. Mathematical models of flow over a wing is always verified by a wind-tunnel, which is then finally verified by a testflight. In the real world where getting it wrong leaves you poorer and not richer, nobody trusts anything.
Wren says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.
It’s not Catastropic Anthropogenic Global Warming anymore. It’s “Climate Change”. CAGW implies a specific testable condition, and that can not be allowed. Even flatulent wooly mammoths are “Climate Change”, which makes it far better.
Don’t people get memos anymore?
James Evans says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:28 am
Personally, I think the whole Global Warming thingy points to a problem that goes far beyond the issue of Climate Change.
Scientists have become so cocky that they don’t bother with science any more. For instance, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These things are hot topics at the moment, but what exactly are they?
They are expressions of the gap between theory and observation. The scientists peering throught their telescopes aren’t seeing what their theories say that they should be seeing. So what do they do? Change the theories? No, they question the observations. And they start making up stuff, like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to try and explain the fact that the observations aren’t right.
This seems to be a growing trait in science. “Our theories are better than the observations.”
So, we have Catastrophic Global Warming, but without the warming. Scientists don’t need those boring observations any more.
The aether (or ether) came about through a smiliar gap between observations and theory, as did phlogiston. If it is has only one attribute (i.e. mass), and neatly plugs a gap between theory and observations, then start to smell a rat.
Except you can’t in this instance – dark matter is invisible, smellless, tasteless but hangs around everywhere where it’s needed, and never where it isn’t.
A bit like celestial carbon monoxide but with a heart of gold.
I quite often talk to ordinary people in the street, at bus stops, on trains, and I never come across anyone who takes AGW as a seriously. Nah, they say, it’s all rubbish innit.
Go to a smart middle class North London dinner party and AGW is an accepted religion which is ‘not discussed in polite society’.
Then further up the social scale again to a really smart function with seriously clever people, and once again AGW is thought to be rubbish. I find these divisions interesting.
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 25, 2010 at 12:35 pm
According to the Reuter’s article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N2Y620100524, Stern wants to plunder the pension funds
Pension funds must shift more capital into low-carbon energy to drive long-term returns, British academic Nicholas Stern told Reuters Global Energy Summit
—————————————————-
Divest from the life giving carbon energy folder so that those with deep pockets can consolidate their grip on a most precious resource for a song.
Chilling.
jcrabb says: (May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am)
“Tom in Florida,
What grounds do you have to say warming is good?”
On the grounds of that’s who we are. Humans evolved in warm climate. Humans have natural methods of dealing with warmth. Humans have no natural method of dealing with cold. It is the reason why more humans live in warmr climates than cold. Warmer is better for humans.
“The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully”
Don’t you mean to say “IF” released fully? BTW, how did the methane get stored there in the first place?
Wren says: (May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am)
”Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”
So it is impossible to change crops, no one else can grow the crops that are grown in the current place somewhere else, no one is capable of adaptation, everything is set in stone and any change will doom us all. I see.
” Warmer would not be better in areas that depend heavily on air-conditioning for health, economic activity, and comfort.”
If they are already depending heavily on these things, than the infrastructure is already there and working well. You realize, don’t you, that you have just made the argument that humans can adapt to different climates successfully and with positive results. So what’s all the worry about?
“Warmer would not be better for coastal areas that would be under water because the warming caused a rise in sea level”
Humans will adapt to any significant sea level rise, if there is any. Those that can’t or won’t will go the way of the dinosaur. Sorry but that’s the nature of life. You cannot stop the change, you can only adapt. (See your comment above)
I am always surprised when the pro AGW NGOs talk about an “overwhelming scientific agreement” on AGW. Can a reputable authority please collate real data on the scientists who are on either side. By this I mean scientists who are expert or associated with climate studies as against dentists, podiatrists and railway engineers.
Good Grief!
We must be able to communicate better to the public the reality of what the climate community has found. This becomes more urgent as more and more people think this is the greatest con in history.
What to do?
We must invest more in public relations, branding and marketing of global warming.
Well, global warming didn’t work as the world is not warming consistently. Branding it as climate change isn’t working. We have to come up with something better, more catchy. How about climate disruptions? Yeah, climate disruptions or the deteriorating atmosphere or maybe human induced chaotic climate change.
Then we need to promote this concept. We have to send out TV teams to every unusual weather event on every place on earth so people are constantly reminded that extreme weather events happens all the times and promote this as human induced.
Let’s see! No, BBC has to stop using the IWTWT technique (It’s worse than we thought).
Look today, they use IWTWT for the same old polar bears with the same old tipping points. This is so passé. It doesn’t work. People have become immune to these sorts of things.
Artwest,
The guradian is promoting child abuse by endorsing the use of children for propaganda dissemination. Why are Brits such easy marks for group think?