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
Wren says
May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:
Why do you think it would be a good thing if there was gradual mass migration of the world’s population in the future?
Wren There has already been a mass migration over the previous 100 years. Look at the world population? Billions of humans, they have settled in warm climates near the oceans where there is warmth and food aplenty. If sealevels rise by 6″ to 1′ and that is a HUGE IF then most of the world won’t even notice, even most coastal cities won’t notice it except in rare situations where they get massive storms along with record high tide. However even without this sea level rise, there would still be massive damage from the same storm.
lets say 1 billion people have to move from low lying areas near the water over the next 100 years. well that is a REALLY slow migration. That averages 10 million people per year, or about 27,000 per day. Current death rates are in the 150,000 per day, globally. Seems like as new younger people are born, they will settle in land which is slightly higher than the land previously occupied thus there will be o mass migration, simply as people die, new people won’t live in the same places.
Why the shocking alarm?
Matt
Any said, “You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.”
Z said, “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.”
You beat me to it, Z. Metallic properties are very well known and follow well-understood laws that can be modeled with a high degree of accuracy (certainly not like climate models!), yet any aircraft your family climbs on will have been structurally verified by tests. Lots of tests. See, Anu, engineers understand that models are tools that can reduce the risk of failing an expensive test…they don’t replace the test in the first place. Aerodynamics are even worse. Talk about a voodoo world of impressive-looking models with less-than-impressive track records in the real world. They have their place, but only within limits bounded by real data.
We use models all the time and understand their limitations. A college professor may ask you to show him your model, but an experienced engineer will ask to see the data instead.
wayne says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:53 am
I just learned recently that there is a 3,000 kV natural limit to how high you can boost the voltage on a grid to increase efficiency. This is due to the nature of an electrical field in air. Near or at this 3,000 kV limit energy will be leaked directly to the air as a plasma discharge. Have you ever seen high tension lines glow about the wires? That is the indicating the limit of which I speak. Therefore, grids are somewhat limited to something lower than that limit to also allow for high humidity situations which only lowers this limit further.
Anu, just thought someone reading your comment above might like to know something of this natural limit.
————–
Thanks – that sounds plausible; I hadn’t heard of it.
I guess if a jump from 765 kV to 1000 kV saves so much lost power, they must have considered 1500 kV, 2000 kV, and 2500 kV – and rejected it for discharge problems in high humidity, or just too expensive given the current state of the art. Probably the former for the higher voltages, and the latter for the lower UHV. Once you build out a national electrical grid for many $billions, you wouldn’t want to upgrade it for many decades, so they are probably pushing the technology as much as they can.
Maybe developed countries should wait till they could build 2,000 kV (or slightly less) grids (1o more years of R&D ? 20 ?) then upgrade. Anyway, China is jumping on 1,000 kV – it’s pretty much a new grid, not an upgrade.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:50 am
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.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, disagrees:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) analysis of satellite temperature data shows a +0.17°C/decade warming.
Perhaps you are thinking of old UAH data (before they were forced to acknowledge all the errors they had in their processing) which showed almost no warming in the lower troposphere (this was about 1978 to 2005). Word travels slowly in the blogosphere…
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.
Sure, if it was going to be a linear response to rising CO2.
But it’s not. Read about GCM’s if you’re interested in what will happen this century.
But don’t try to solve for global temperature, given CO2 ppm, on your cellphone calculator. Ain’t gonna happen.
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.
Well, choose your experts.
I knew people in 2004 who thought gasoline prices (in the US) wouldn’t go over $1.50 for a “long, long time”. Six years later, Hummer is dead.
People have trouble accepting that the world changes very quickly sometimes. Don’t worry about it, till you’re forced to by cold, hard reality.
You might have 10 years left, max – enjoy.
Unfortunately, only the abstract is there. The full article requires a journal subscription.
Studies in the Canadian arctic recently are showing that warmth causes the growth of ground-shading bushes or tiny trees, which dampens the methane release. I guess that’s a negative feedback.
Z says:
May 25, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Anu says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:18 am
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.
Yup, 800,000 hours of supercomputer design time.
15,000 hours of wind tunnel tests.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html
and then…
Boeing 787 wing flaw extends inside plane
The wing damage that grounded Boeing’s new composite plastic 787 Dreamliner occurred under less stress and is more extensive than previously reported.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html
Engineering and science are difficult.
But if your family is flying in the airplane, hopefully the government scientists (FAA) have done their job correctly, and the airplane was certified properly.
The Boeing 787 will probably be certified later this year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
And let’s hope those computer models of composite fatigue at 35,000 feet were correct…
Studies in the Canadian arctic recently are showing that warmth causes the growth of ground-shading bushes or tiny trees, which dampens the methane release. I guess that’s a negative feedback.
Wren says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.
===============================================
Uh huh.
But fortunately…the opinion of…and the morons who are spreading of the myth/scare of CAGW, will be eventually stopped by the public…or by natural selection, whichever comes sooner.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Correction:
“and the morons who are spreading the myth/scare of CAGW”
Wren at 10:12am and later posts.
In spite of your later posts which indicated your physical age you are not an adult. Adults process information and make conclusions. They do not regurgititate talking points they read on RealClimate.
Rich Matarese @ur momisugly 8:16am
Kipling on WUWT so early in the morning????
Van Grungy says:
May 25, 2010 at 2:16 pm
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.
—————
Why would you question Stern’s advice? He’s a “former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert.” That’s a rare combination.
The World Bank does all they do “for the children,” and the planet of course. And Stern apparently spent considerable time looking out his office window watching the climate change.
I’m sure a consensus of experts would agree that his credentials are impeccable.
Have to agree. Most people are blissfully unaware of the shaky science and even if they have heard of “climategate” wouldn’t have actually read the emails. I put the about face down mainly to the constant drip drip of “Biscuit Weevils could be up to 5% more aggressive in warming climate” rubbish. In the end people simply tune out.
As for politicians being ahead of the curve stay tuned as the PIGS collapse. I don’t think Obama will be using Spain’s economy as a shining example of anything for much longer. Although not entirely due to living in green la la land that has certainly played a large part.
As we in the UK are asked to make cuts to public services of some 6 billion somebody (not the MSM obviously) might start asking questions about the hundreds of billions set aside for the various “climate” scams over the coming years. As things stand no mention has been made by the MSM or our new overlords. A bit surreal making 6 billion in cuts while the “climate act” alone is costed out at 18 billion a year and doesn’t merit a mention. I’m sure that forcing Hospitals to use their new shrunken budgets to buy “carbon credits” from the likes of Goldman Sachs will open a few more eyes before long.
As for the BBC “fightback” (and there I thought they were neutral purveyors of news) It seems that they are fast realising that the upsurge in scepticism is destroying their pensions (all 8 billion invested in green scams) so watch out for the BBC they now have a very real motivation.
(UK interest only – seems the Beeb plan to plug the pension hole directly from the licence fee. Green economy – nice work if you can get it)
Well the warmistas are still banging on about Carbon footprints
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7760327/How-big-is-your-carbon-footprint.html
But the responses indicate that most Brits see it for the pig-in-a-poke that it all is.
“PaulD says:
May 25, 2010 at 8:23 am
One of the most annoying things about how sceptics are treated in the MSM is the way the media sets up strawmen arguments to represent the view of sceptics. I have finally found a great article that well expresses the views of the sceptics and summarizes many different threads of the sceptics argument. It is written by a law professor. Here is the link for Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1612851_code711466.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1612851%26mirid%3D1&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F .
Unfortunately, only the abstract is there. The full article requires a journal subscription.”
Actually, the full article can be downloaded for free from the above site.
Eco-fascism is coming to the UK!
It doesn’t care what people think!
Well, they don’t call it that in this program from the BBC, but that is what they mean.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20100524-2030a.mp3
They discuss if democracy has to be suspended as more and more people discover that this is the biggest con in history.
Thanks, I’ve just done so. I thought initially, from looking at the URL of the PDF, that it was just a download of the abstract.
I understand that if we are experiencing AGW caused by CO2 than it will leave it’s footprint.
Namely the Tropical Troposphere should be heating up due to hotspots at an altitude of 8-12km and above it the Stratosphere should be cooling down.
Apparently both are behaving normally.
Therefore it should be end of the story.
When the “Love Guru from India” went for “Climate change” instead of “global warming”, many understood its a fraud. When they switch to “Ocean Acidification” even more will understand.
When AR5 comes as a summary of all the scary stories we have seen lately, the majority will be convinced. “Its a fraud”! will be the concensus.
And then, Mr. Stoere, who is “wrongly constructed in the head”?
Z says:
May 25, 2010 at 1:17 pm
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.
====
Nor is there any country in history that ever reduced it’s debt without tax revenues. Of course taxes add cost to what’s being taxed, and a tax on coal would add to the cost of electric power. But tax revenues, regardless of source, can be used to pay down the national debt and/or compensate the producers and consumers most effected by the higher cost of electric power.
Making energy cost more encourages innovation and adaptation to use energy more efficiently, which reduces pollution and slows the depletion of energy sources. Witness how rising gasoline prices caused motorists to demand higher mpg, and how auto makers responded by producing vehicles with better gas mileage.
RichieP says:
May 25, 2010 at 8:49 am
Yes – I could not agree more with your comments, especially the “Network” moment, which I have been feeling for some years now.
I suppose the internet – and sites like this – provide us with the opportunity to open the window and shout out “I am mad as hell, …..etc etc”.
Of course, to deluded idiots like Wren, Anu etc, we – the skeptics – are mad, anyway.
But I never did place much credence on the opinions of the gullible.