WUWT and its large readership are often blamed for such results, in this case, we have nothing to do with it. Luboš Motl writes on his blog The Reference Frame
ABC1, an Australian TV channel, is planning to air…
I can change your mind about… climate
…on Thursday, April 26th, 8:30 pm. You may click the link above and check the trailer as well as the results of a poll about the attitudes concerning global warming.
When I was taking the screenshot, the “dismissive” group (including your humble correspondent) was covering 52% of the respondents. The number of alarmed respondents is more than twice smaller.
Seems like they’ll have an uphill battle changing those minds. Maybe the Australian Skeptical Science team of warm and fuzzy wombats can rally the charge for a turnaround. 😉
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
Long live the skeptical anti AGW crowd. I count myself among them.
They key to this poll is in the intro graphic which asks the questions:
What do you think about climate change? What does it say about you?
The implication is clear. The follow up program will not be about the evidence to support AGW. It will be about what is “wrong” with the people who are in the dismissive and doubtful categories. This poll isn’t about how people have evaluated the facts. It is about assessing how many of them are “wrong” and will no doubt be followed with recommendations as to what to do about them.
I gave them a bunch of odd dots to connect. They connected the dots and classed me DISMISSIVE. That must have been based on just one answer. I was expecting a big “TILT” – flashing red. For instance, I indicated I was very concerned about the issue of global warming. A scam is worth worrying about – is it not? The climate? Not worried about it.
———————————–
Check out the “winter” weather forecast for Pennsylvania. Part of the same area that had an early summer – a few weeks ago.
I didn’t enter a Postal Code . . . and I’m still rated as “Dismissive”.
I don’t understand why the categories weren’t as follows: Rational, Confused, Rube, Suker-Chump, Bed-Wetter. There’s an awful lot of “Unacknowledged Bias” at play here.
I took the survey and broke out laughing many times at the blatant push polling questions. An appalling survey from the start to the end where they even ask for “Political Affiliation” and don’t give a “none” option – obviously every single person must be aligned to one of the major political parties in their mind. And yes, it says 52% are “Dismissives” (is that a more polite or PC way to say “denier”?).
Ed, Mr. Jones says:
April 22, 2012 at 9:25 pm
I didn’t enter a Postal Code . . . and I’m still rated as “Dismissive”.
>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting. So the postal code is purely voluntary, it isn’t being used to screen out non aussie participants after all. So… why ask at all then? To identify which areas are most in need of agressive education programs?
Amazing video for earth day types to see…
onlyme says:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/
Check out the survey linked above, NO DISTINCTION between anthropogenic and natural global warming there, no way to remain honest and answer the questions. This is the MOST BIASED survey I have ever seen, with the questions akin to Have You Stopped Eating Dog Yet, yes or no.
The questions also appear to play “bait and switch” between any actual issue of warming and the political issue of warming.
It’s somewhat odd that the results are not a simple summary of the answers given too.
Scottish Sceptic says:
More than likely if they get too many out of country IP addresses, then they will simply remove them.
Because Australians would never go on holiday, work or study abroad 🙂
KenB says:
So much dirty political work going on in the background in Australia, the liars are determined and willing to do anything, in the vain hope they wont be destroyed in the next election.
I doubt that Australian politicians (which is in practice a rather larger group than just elected officials) are any “dirtier” (or “cleaner”) than those anywhere else.
The survey begins with an opening statement that is flawed from a research point of view, utilizing confirmation bias and attempting through ‘framing’ to yield a certain outcome.
“You may have noticed that global warming has been getting some attention in the news. Global warming refers to the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
There’s a little word game. The objective is to create something interestnig by removing, adding, or changing one letter in a word (I’d expand it to a well-known short phrase). Let’s play.
A survey about GHG effects on global warming would be a ‘questionair’.
Perhaps the study of heat reservoirs and energy flow in global warming would be politikcal science.
What did warmistas need in Copenhagen and Cancun at their parties where they randomly bump into each other, rub parts together, and wiggle? Brownian lotion. (Bottled by Uncle Jerry?)
Anthropogenic Global Farming is what people really do.
I’m dissmissive but I would have liked a question such as ” Is there any other reason other than the fear of global warming for reducing our energy use and dependance on fossil fuels”
Got accepted as a real Aussie reagdless of a Swedish postal code. Dismissive and proud.
It appears that I am an unbeliever as well, shucks. Had a look at the video promoting that ABC nonsense where they stated that disagreeing with a climate skeptic can be “dangerous”. The female self proclaimed warmist guru started bating Minchin straight off with a “smoking is bad for your health” argument just to completely piss Minchen off and that worked. So that entire program will be a total sham as usual. Sickeningly obvious outcome i bet. There’s taxpayers dollars well wasted..
I noticed this part of Anna’s bio:
” She became a climate change campaigner after her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW was affected by the Drought, and Anna connected the dots to climate change”
When the drought broke, flooding occured due to poor dam operation, and Australia was saddled with expensive and useless desalination plants, did Anna ‘connect the dots’ and realise CAGW was a complete crock?
Or does she just continue to ‘fight the good fight’ because it gives her something to show off about to her vegan friends at dinner parties?
AndyG55 (from down-under) says:
April 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Even with Nick Minchin there, I expect that there will be some propaganda spill by the ABC, and almost certainly there will be some sort of tampering of any post show poll. The ABC are avid backers of the AGW cause/belief/hoax.. Watch for some sort of trap !!!
I expect that the GetUp! mod (a left wing propaganda troop sponsored by the Government and the Union) were very careful NOT to vote in the first poll, but will come out in a swarm afterwards.
A VERY good point. Problem for them though, is that as much as the questions in the first poll were illogical and biased, so will be the questions in the second one. And sceptics are used to publically tearing this sort of nonsense to shreds, and that is what we shall do. It will backfire on them like these silly stunts always do. They still haven’t learned to debate the actual science (because they cannot) and are doing this in the continued misbelief that it’s all about publicity. Fools!
you can still log onto poll I did do it please
17683 when I voted.
52% are dismissive
What does ‘twice as small’ mean?
Sorry, should have typed; what does ‘more than twice smaller’ mean?
I am a…. Dismissive. Well show real evidence of humans causing world destruction, not some model ran off your assumptions and I might listen more.
Glad you pointed this out, the ABC is just a mouthpiece of the collectivism herd that I rarely visit their website or watch their channels
I don’t think us sceptics should do things like fake an Australian postcode (as suggested above) just to get on the survey. Leave the fakery to the Warmists like Gleick. Our argument will win anyway so I don’t think we need to risk getting the finger pointed at us for engaging in underhand tactics.
If one sees the HTML code, we can get the percentages, votes when I voted, and votes one hour later:
Dismissive: 52% 9148 9246
Alarmed: 26% 4612 4658
Concerned: 9% 1632 1646
Doubtful: 9% 1619 1633
Cautious: 3% 553 555
Disengaged: 1% 119 121
Might be interesting to track this over time.
Ecotretas
I did the survey and found that I’m alarmed. But I fancy a little argument on the program may turn me dismisssive.