Claim: Most People Think Climate Change is Serious, but Other Problems are More Important

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to New Zealand researcher Sam Crawley, “People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.”

Most people consider climate change a serious issue, but rank other problems as more important. That affects climate policy

May 19, 2021 1.01pm AEST

Sam Crawley
Researcher, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Straight denial of climate change is now relatively rare. Most people believe it is happening and is a serious problem. But many rank other issues — healthcare and the economy — as more important. 

This means people can’t be easily classified as either deniers or believers when it comes to climate change. In my research, I focused on understanding the complexity of climate opinion in light of the slow political response to climate change around the world. 

I conducted an online survey in the UK and found 78% of respondents were extremely or fairly certain climate change is happening. 

But when asked to rank eight issues (climate change, healthcare, education, crime, immigration, economy, terrorism and poverty) from most to least important to the country, 38% ranked climate change as least important, with a further 15% placing it seventh out of eight.

Fewer than 5% of 3,445 respondents in the 2017 New Zealand Election Study said the environment was the most important election issue and an even smaller number specifically mentioned climate change. 

People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.

Read more:

Until activists produce evidence there actually is a climate crisis, I suspect their cause will continue to struggle to hold the attention of ordinary people. Losing your job is a crisis. A positive Covid test and a persistent cough is terrifying. A few degrees of warming feels like Summer.

As for the “free-market economics” crack, if climate activists stopped pushing command economy communism as the solution to climate change, say if more activists supported right wing emissions reduction solutions, like removing bureaucratic obstacles to the commissioning new zero carbon nuclear power plants, they might get more engagement from the right. But then I guess there wouldn’t really be any point to climate activism.

4.6 30 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 6:05 am


“Report: China emits more greenhouse gases than all developed countries combined”

A report has found that China emitted more greenhouse gases than the U.S. and other developed countries combined in 2019. The May 6 report by New York-based research firm Rhodium Group found that China produced more than two times the amount of the U.S.’s total emissions. Projects under the Chinese regime’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contributed to its excessive emissions levels.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 6:09 am

Belt and Road is moving China’s emissions to multiple points around the globe.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 6:11 am

Good for China. At least someone is putting more CO2 into our CO2 depleted atmosphere. America needs to do more to help offset the global CO2 famine.

Peter W
Reply to  John Shewchuk
May 20, 2021 12:09 pm

Especially in view of the coming ice age, and what it will do to our ability to raise food.

Reply to  Peter W
May 21, 2021 5:30 am

I hope to get my V6 fuel guzzler back on the road soon. Every little helps.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 7:09 am

“Report: China emits more greenhouse gases than all developed countries combined”
Tell you what; build your own factories and make your own cheap plastic crap, instead of “offshoring” all your materials, labour, intellectual property, and, most importantly, profits. (Where’s mister GAAP right now?) Then we’ll see who is polluting what, no?
Or do you get paid to insert anti-China comments into random blogs?

Reply to  paranoid goy
May 20, 2021 7:42 am

Ironically, it’s not anti-China, but revelations of environmentalism with “benefits”: labor and environmental arbitrage.

Reply to  paranoid goy
May 20, 2021 8:39 am

I don’t get paid but the CCP is fully equivalent to the nazi party…anyone who loves the CCP should move to China.

Reply to  Anti_griff
May 20, 2021 11:05 am

Geez, I know the Nazis were evil and all that but even so isn’t it a bit harsh to compare them to the CCP? 😉

There is this very heavy duty discussion between Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry. In it the point is made that we have amongst ourselves people who are as malign as any other totalitarians including the Nazis and the CCP at its worst during the cultural revolution (and let’s not forget the Soviets).

It’s not obvious to me how we go about fighting the corruption, but fight it we must.

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2021 3:56 pm

Thanks, you Commie bastard! for the link to Fry and JP. I had not seen it and saved it- to savour it later. regards

Reply to  paranoid goy
May 20, 2021 10:18 am

You must have been a BIG, HUGH TRUMP! supporter.

Reply to  Drake
May 20, 2021 11:09 am

Who is this “Hugh Trump” that you speak of? A distant relative of the Trump family?

Gerry, England
Reply to  mrsell
May 21, 2021 6:46 am

Is he a relative of George Trump who was beaten by Dementia Joe in the US election? Well, I say election but…..

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Drake
May 20, 2021 8:38 pm

Hugh is one of society’s unsung heroes.

The work Hugh does, all in his own time and without once demanding reward, recognition or assistance, is mind bending.

Frankly we should all take a moment of our time to give silent thanks to Hugh and everything he does, even if you have never met him, read about him, or even seen a blurry and possibly photoshopped photo of him.

Hugh Trump. What a guy!

Reply to  Drake
May 20, 2021 11:38 pm

…and you must be ten years old? Let the uncle teach you politics 101:
1.All politicians are whores.
2.All political parties are criminal mafia gangs.
3.All political theories are religions, just like all religions are sytems of political control.
Therefor, dear child, do not assume that anyone that dislikes your favourite politician, automatically loves the one you hate, okay? Grown-ups think further than the last slogan they heard. You’ll see when you grow up…

Reply to  paranoid goy
May 20, 2021 11:08 am

Measurements are not “anti-China”. Why the emotive language? Can we just “follow the science” and leave emotion out of it?

Reply to  mrsell
May 20, 2021 1:00 pm

Now that facts are racist, no, we can’t.

John in Oz
Reply to  TonyG
May 20, 2021 4:35 pm

Not only facts. Apparently maths and science are racist as well.

Who knew??

Reply to  John in Oz
May 25, 2021 4:22 pm

Yup: and the damn fools who push THAT twaddle appear clueless that Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece gave us much of our higher mathematics… Wait, weren’t both those civilizations “persons of colour?”

Reply to  mrsell
May 20, 2021 11:33 pm

Are you answering me, or that little emotional outburst at the people who manufacture all America’s junk, so Americans can sit unemployed while yammering on about carbon dioxide and who’s farting most?
But from “follow the science” I assume you are being sarcastic, right?

Reply to  paranoid goy
May 21, 2021 4:07 am

a lot of non chinese nations peoples would be quite happy to have manufacturing jobs back again
but the warmist twats scream when anyone tries to restart industry trades and skills again

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 8:09 am

And China has more people than all developed countries combined. If CO2 attributed to exports were allocated to country of import, China would look even better. If you really think eco-colonialism will solve this “problem,” I think you need to think a bit harder

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave
May 20, 2021 8:51 am

“If CO2 attributed to exports were allocated to country of import, China would look even better.” Exactly. The state of Mass. loves to brag how efficient the state is with relatively low carbon emissions- but the state is no longer industrial so it produces almost nothing. I keep saying to groups here that the state must count all the emissions for the products we import. They just ignore me.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 9:08 am

Interesting idea: Calculate shares of manmade CO2 by consumer vs. by producer. Obviously, at least at the national level, lots of production is for internal consumption. Still, a large portion of the CO2 generated by the Communists in China is generated because we offshored our production to them. Plotting emissions by consumer would shift the responsibility for lots of CO2 back to us.

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 20, 2021 9:14 am

And, through recognition of environmental and labor arbitrage, restore the “invisible hand” of market economics (“capitalism”) to optimize moderation.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  n.n
May 20, 2021 9:25 am

There are many good reasons for moderation. Reducing the output of CO2 isn’t one of them. Atmospheric CO2 is an unmitigated, unalloyed blessing. That statement would still be true even if we ever double the current levels

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 20, 2021 10:23 am

And of course WE, as in humans, will never double CO2. Natural climatic cycles might, but nothing WE do will make much of a difference, until such time as a true emergency arrives. You know, 500 or 1000 or 10,000 years in the future when global cooling begins to sequester so much CO2 in the oceans that humans are faced with starvation.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 20, 2021 11:36 am

Clearly, the case for CO2 being beneficial to plants is far stronger than the case it is responsible for most of the warming.

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 21, 2021 5:32 am

Burning all the fossil fuels available will not double CO2 AFAIK.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 11:30 pm

So, you retract your earlier puerile attempt at relevance by insulting the wrong people?

– but the state is no longer industrial so it produces almost nothing.

I will take that as an apology from all the intellectual geniuses that downvoted me so vigorously…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  paranoid goy
May 21, 2021 4:01 am

Not sure your point. As for the state no longer being industrial- there still is some of course, mostly small enterprises. The big ones that used to employ thousands are gone- not counting the universities and hospitals. The state was a pioneer in industrialization- with shoes, textiles, paper, electronics and others- now mostly gone. The state’s population is about the same as when I was a child in the ’50s. Most young people leave for the “sun belt”.

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 21, 2021 11:02 am

Hi Joseph, When I was there in the 80s there was a very large hi-tech base – DEC, Wang, Apollo, Data General, Prime and a few others – mostly arising of MIT. Pretty much all gone – although Juniper Networks and a few smaller concerns are there.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 23, 2021 1:43 am

The point being the stupid hypocracy of blaming China for pollution, when the biggest market for the low grade plastic crap they churn out, is the very people trying to fill the hole of what was once their national industry and pride. After destroying their own industry and the future of their nation, they now yammer on about stolen IP and pollution, prodded along by the propaganda of the very same people who “offshored” their jobs and industry.
And all the average American can come up with? Oooh, China bad, China flu, nasty China!
Like spoilt children pouting when they see an orphan having a whale of a time with the toys that was not good enough for the spoilt brats in dire need of newer, better, fancier toys.
Ya’ll should grow the eff up!

Emily Daniels
Reply to  paranoid goy
May 24, 2021 11:47 am

Um, he was quoting a Climate News article and didn’t provide his own comments at all, yet you referred to it as a “little emotional outburst.” All of the misunderstandings that ensued were entirely yours. There was nothing inherently “anti-China” in his post, nor did he say anything about pollution (since anyone who’s passed 7th-grade biology knows that CO2 is necessary for life and not a pollutant). You were the one who went off on a series of emotional rants that addressed what you apparently thought he was saying.

We could just as easily ask if you were paid to post pro-China statements, since you jumped right on a post that wasn’t accusing China of anything in particular.

Reply to  Emily Daniels
May 24, 2021 9:37 pm

Um, he was quoting a Climate News article and didn’t provide his own comments at all

Uhm er umhum…


“Report: China emits more greenhouse gases than all developed countries combined”

Did you follow his stupid, propagandistic, China-bashing, Yankee-absolving link? Did you consider his original stupid statement in the light of the conversation at hand? Do you see how he insisted on inserting stupidity about China’s pollution, then two comments later admitted that industry in his homeland is nearly non-existent, because China makes everything they used to make?
So maybe you should leave the emotions aside, and work on your blog thread reading skills. Or at least make sure what the conversation is about, before you indulge your schoolmarminess?
In your defence, this site’s comment format can make it difficult to tie specific retorts to the original comment, so… I forgive your emotional outburst. (the ole’ sense of humour intact, yes?)

Reply to  Dave
May 20, 2021 11:10 am

Here’s a thought – since the Earth doesn’t care about how many people reside in a given country, let’s divide CO2 emissions by land area?

Reply to  mrsell
May 21, 2021 5:33 am

Why? Best output wins a medal for food production?

Reply to  mrsell
May 21, 2021 4:13 pm

No you just compare the raw number as you say we are each 1 country. You don’t get extra seats in the UN based on your population. Even in sport your best athletes compete against other countries regardless of population you don’t get special rules because you have less people.

The whole dividing emissions per capita is a construct of lefty loons who want to push human-rights band wagon that every person born somehow inherits the “right” to their percentage of the worlds resources.

Reply to  LdB
May 23, 2021 2:02 am

CO2 per capita, per country, per square mile? No matter how you cut it, you are still counting angels dancing on a pin. You want to divide the uncountable by the countless to achieve a number that has no relevance.

construct of lefty loons … push human-rights band wagon that every person… “right” to their percentage of the worlds resources.

I understand what you want to say, but consider that this protocol is promoted by those who need resources to leave the hand of the population, so they can grab it up and monopolise distribution for their own profit.
Everyone hates and distrusts communism, then run into the embrace of globalist capitalism, which has only one aim: Monopolising all resources and ruling the world with an iron rod. Can you see how the communists are winning? Can you see the differenc ebetween communism and capitalism? I don’t.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 8:33 am

The Belt and Road initiative was openly commenced almost a decade ago – we certainly weren’t kept in the dark about it. And quietly the Chinese are pushing ahead and doing just what they set out to do, namely investing in underdeveloped countries’ infrastructure and production. That is exactly what British investors did back in the 18th and 19th centuries. In so doing they built an empire. So will China.

And they don’t care one hoot about CO2 emissions. And they will bury us.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
May 20, 2021 8:54 am

Here in the West we have the Socialists carrying out their “Long March Through The Institutions”, while the Chinese CCP carries out its “Long March Throughout The World”.

Reply to  Mr.
May 20, 2021 8:56 am

It’s a leftist pincer- movement, and we’re getting creamed.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mr.
May 20, 2021 11:37 am

Or squished!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 8:42 am

Here is the review of Patrick Moore’s excellent new book. Highly recommended!

Join us TODAY MAY 20, 2021 for a discussion with Patrick Moore on his new book:
It dawned on me one day that most of the scare stories in the media today are based on things that are invisible, like C02, or very remote, like polar bears and coral reefs. Thus the average person cannot observe and verify the truth of these claims for themselves. They must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians and the scientists – all of whom have huge financial and /or political interests in the subject – to tell them the truth. This book is my effort, after 50 years as an independent scientist and environmental activist, to expose the misinformation and outright lies used to scare us and our children about the future of the Earth.”
About the Author
Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. He is a Co-Founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. Following his time With Greenpeace, Dr Moore Joined the Forest Alliance of BC where he worked for ten years to develop the Principles of Sustainable Forestry that have now been adopted by much of the industry. Today. Dr. Moore focuses on the promotion of sustainability and consensus build1ng among competing concerns. In 2013 he published “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”, which documents his 15 years with Greenpeace and outlines his vision for a sustainable future.
Register in advance for this webinar by clicking the link below.
MAY 20 3:30pm CDT
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing Information about joining the webinar.

May 20, 2021 1:48 pm

Again, O.T., all caps MaCrae hawks someone else’s work with a long exhoration and a copyrighted quote. If this is really “Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University; and Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng.” I would like to read a written submission or text conversation here in WUWT. But these posts are just spam.

Reply to  dk_
May 21, 2021 2:43 am

dk-head seems to have become my new personal troll. I must be doing something right to deserve “special attention” from the green mob.
Patrick Moore’s interview was excellent – he is highly knowledgeable and speaks very clearly about the scientific fraud of climate thuggery.
Catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) has always been a lie, a fraud. I first published that CAGW was a false crisis in 2002, but I knew that fact in 1985, based on paleoclimatology. For a while, we thought the “warmists” were just technically mistaken, but their thuggish Leninist tactics as exposed in the Climategate emails and their vicious “cancel culture” soon made it obvious that they were deliberately lying.
The warmists have been lying since the very beginning, circa 1970. To end 2020 they have made 48 scary failed climate predictions that have fully expired – at 50:50 odds, the probability of that happening are 1 in ~281 trillion – no rational person or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long – they know they are lying – they’ve known all along. Their objectives are not environmental, that is their false front – their objectives are extreme-left political and financial control – the Great Reset.

Last edited 24 days ago by ALLAN MACRAE
May 21, 2021 7:45 am

I am glad that I finally got a response. Prior attempts came up with nothing, in itself also suspicious. I also had great difficulty finding out who you might have been. I was not at all sure that what looked like commercial postings were generated by a human, and given the lack of context for the comment, couldn’t verify for myself where the postings were coming from. I transferred my annoyance at another source to your posts.

I found no simple way to check that you were who you seemed to say you were. I will try to become more familiar with your other work.

I am a fan of Patrick Moore, but I don’t choose to use zoom for anything. Hopefully you will publish a link to a recorded version of your talk.

Apologies submitted.

Reply to  dk_
May 21, 2021 2:08 pm

He is real and has been posting for many years here with over 5,000 posts listed.

Last edited 24 days ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 21, 2021 9:20 pm

Thanks. I’ve just begun to figure that out. Very gumpian week for me. I can only offer the olive branch and try to do better. I really hope that we can be civil. I will withdraw if I am the problem, but I hope that isn’t necessary, and I’m still trying to figure out his other post.
Still trying to figure out how I missed him on search. I usually don’t come up dry. I was distracted, but shouldn’t have been that much in error.
But I am wrong, and have said so. I can hope to fix it.

Last edited 23 days ago by dk_
May 22, 2021 3:43 am

No worries gentlemen. I sent this note to Patrick Moore after his interview. We’ve been e-friends for years – he’s such a decent guy.

This is the cutting edge of climate science. If Ed Berry is correct, then both sides of the CAGW mainstream debate (about the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity – big and dangerous or small and beneficial) are both wrong – cart before horse – as I published in 2008. Temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature/climate. “The future cannot cause the past”. An absolute disproof of the CAGW hypo – Shazaam!

The huge decline in fossil fuel consumption during the Covid-19 lockdown had no impact on atmospheric CO2 increase – more evidence that Ed Berry’s latest book and paper are correct – see below.
My friend Ed says the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not man-made. The smartest people I know think he is correct.
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae, 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion.
Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored.
Think about that: Kuo was correct in 1990, and for 31 years climate science has ignored that conclusion and has been going backwards!
Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is a fiction – so small, if it exists at all, it is practically irrelevant.
“The future cannot cause the past.” Here is the proof, from my 2008 paper:
In the modern data record, the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months. This is an absolute disproof of the CAGW hypothesis, which states that increasing CO2 drives temperature. “The future cannot cause the past.”
In my 2019 paper below, I explained why the lag is ~9 months – it is basic calculus, the 90 degree (1/4 cycle) lag of the derivative and its integral, which is the ~3 year ENSO period.
My 2008 paper remains very important. My 2008 conclusion was duplicated and expanded by Humlum et al in 2013, for which I am grateful.
My 2008 paper has been cited by Ed Berry in his 2020 book and related paper, which is at the cutting edge of climate science.

All warmists and most skeptics argue about the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2, and whether the resulting CO2-driven global warming will be hot and dangerous or warm and beneficial. Both groups are probably wrong, because global cooling is happening now, even as CO2 concentration increases.
There is a high probability that the mainstream debate is wrong – a waste of decades of vital time, tens of trillions of dollars of green energy nonsense and millions of lives. Vital energy systems have been compromised, damaged with intermittent, unreliable wind and solar generation – a debacle.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple. The green sabotage of our vital energy systems, whether innocent or deliberate, has cost lives and could cost very many more.
Scientific details here:
Repeating, “The future cannot cause the past.”
Regards, Allan

May 23, 2021 6:33 am

Patrick Moore has also provided early warning (“prebunking?”) on the green goons’ rising microplastics demonization and mythology campaigns. Has there been any news on that front? I’m seening more fake news on the subject almost weekly. I’d appreciate anything you can share on the subject.

Reply to  dk_
May 25, 2021 11:37 am

Have not researched the plastics-in-oceans subject.

I understand that ~all the plastics in the oceans comes from Asia and Africa. Not our doing.

May 20, 2021 6:08 am

Climate change is serious, it is seriously not caused by humans and seriously can’t be stopped by humans. Very serious, indeed.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  2hotel9
May 20, 2021 6:19 am

The past few days here in north central Massachusetts- it’s very warm, very dry, bright blue skies and I love it! If somebody tells me it’s not normal, I’ll kick their ass. I think this kind of weather is just what this guy needs- my grandparents all came here from Italy so my genetics crave this warm, dry weather and my spirit loves the bright blue skies- compared to the normal cold, damp New England weather with perpetually grey skies. If this is climate change, I want more of it! Vive la climate change!

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 6:44 am

In the words of Bush The Junior: Climate Change – Bring It On….

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 7:27 am

We have had barely a day with average or above average temperatures in Dublin this spring/summer and forecasts for the rest of the month indicate we should expect this continue into June. I and many Irish would welcome some global warming of 2-3°C

Hans Henrik Hansen
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 20, 2021 8:36 am

Same in Denmark!

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 20, 2021 9:07 am

what, and damage the woolen goods industry?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 9:44 am

My view of NE weather is a bit skewed, having been acquired on Cape Cod.

Reply to  2hotel9
May 20, 2021 6:43 am

I certainly think climate change is a very serious issue where the most concerning thing about is how badly the alarmists have distorted, misrepresented and lied about the science claimed to support their malfeasance.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 20, 2021 8:22 am

They can’t even articulate what they’re saying in clear English but, then again, maybe they are speaking in the language of deception deliberately. Do they, and the voices in this idiot’s head, mean climate change, or do they mean climate change caused by atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide above 280ppm? I suppose maybe they don’t even know what they mean.

Reply to  philincalifornia
May 20, 2021 10:41 am

I think it’s easier to panic people when you’re inarticulate.

Reply to  philincalifornia
May 21, 2021 9:18 am

They can’t articulate support for their bogus claims because if they were forthright, people would see through the deception. Instead they leverage ignorance to stoke emotional fears.

What seperates man from beast is enough gray matter to filter emotion which originate from a much more primitive part of the brain. What we seem to be experencing is the dumbing down of the human race caused by an education system that poisons brains with nonsense about what to think, rather than teaching that brain how to think.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 20, 2021 9:45 am

Distort, misrepresent and lie, the legs of the political left’s stool.

tim maguire
May 20, 2021 6:16 am

“People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities”

You could count on one hand the number of people who support free-market economics and hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities.

Climate change is serious and we are powerless to stop it so we should be putting our energies into protecting ourselves from its consequences, not squandering our wealth on the fools errand of controlling the weather.

Last edited 25 days ago by tim maguire
Paul Johnson
Reply to  tim maguire
May 20, 2021 9:06 am

 “People who … hold authoritarian attitudes …are also less likely to engage with climate change.”

Aren’t people who are most zealous about climate change also most likely to favor authoritarian control as the best course of action?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Paul Johnson
May 20, 2021 11:13 pm

It’s ALL about authoritarian control, the “only” & “final solution” to manmade (alleged) climate change, according to the UN’s totalitarian bible, Agenda 21, is a one-world global guvment, claiming ownership of all the world’s resources, that’ll be metered out by un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, & un-sackable, self-appointed bureaucrats!!! The EU Comissioners are in charge of everything yet responsible for absolutely nothing, is that what we want for our children, dictated to by totalitarian fools, screwing the taxpayer with their expenses, wanting for nothing! The UK & US fought two bloody world wars last century to liberate as much of the world from tyranny & dictatorship! Francois Mitterand, former President of France, told a bunch of journos after Kyoto was done, “this is the first step on the way to global governance!”. Democracy is under threat & attack, but it’s all very subtle, softly, softly, catchy monkey, sort of approach. It’s not a conspiracy, they are done behind closed doors & in secret, this is being done in full view of everyone who wants to see it, just like the best way to hide something is to place it in full view & nobody notices, until it’s too late of course!!! End of rant, time for my second mug of tea, peed off too as global warming has stopped today, as it’s cold, wet, & miserable!!! 😉

Reply to  Paul Johnson
May 21, 2021 8:13 am

More than that, those who are zealous about climate change don’t care about climate change. They care only about the power gained in the pursuit of the political/social position.

Attended a conf at UCAR a decade or so back. As the only admitted skeptic, I had lots of opportunity to put up with being a constant target of the alarmist proselytizing. At one point I asked a group of five, what they drove? Every one of them drove a large ICE vehicle. One had just bought a Sequoia (nice vehicle). I then asserted that if they believed CO2 was destroying their children’s/grandchildren’s futures, they were obliged to destroy those vehicles. Not sell them. Destroy them. It would be the only ethical course of action. Topic changed at that point. ‘Still good friends with a few of those guys. Don’t work for NOAA anymore. For most of those at the conference, getting grant money from NOAA meant toeing the line. And, they did. ‘Still do.

B Clarke
May 20, 2021 6:20 am

“Straight denial of climate change is now relatively rare. Most people believe it is happening and is a serious problem. But many rank other issues — healthcare and the economy — as more important. ”

Correct, and the reason is they have no alternative narrative, = ( the science is settled bbc ) when talking to two young professionals over the last two days ,they have never heard of the maunder-minimum dalton minimum ,GSM. When I encouraged them to research they said they would. In my experience people I have asked to research the above never do, people simply do not want to inform themselves ( the exception makes the rule) .

Health care and economy of course are more important these issues are primary to one’s self,
A selfish ( not meant negatively) attitude is a survival necessity.

What people have not woken up to is climate mitigation policys which will effect negatively primary health and prosperity, the very things the article identifies as primarily most important to people.

Jeffery P
Reply to  B Clarke
May 20, 2021 6:56 am

People were given a list of problems and told to rank them. My educated guess is if people didn’t have to include climate change as an issue, it likely would fall off the chart.

Last edited 25 days ago by Jeffery P
Reply to  Jeffery P
May 20, 2021 8:32 am

agreed. I don’t know anyone who wakes up and says “Climate Change” is ruining my day. Only those who serve to profit from the Globull Warming have any concern and its monetary, and nothing to do with humanity. HICC, AGW is a joke

B Clarke
Reply to  davetherealist
May 20, 2021 9:20 am

The point is people will wake up arguably to late , you would have to have had your head buried in sand to not hear renewables are going to be the source of power,there intermittent, they can not sustain a grid with 100% power, on the other paw , we are told it will work, we are told coal will be phased out within a few years, we are told no new gas boilers after 2025, what this amounts to is a massive shift to renewables which will also have to power all the new electric cars, we are also told switch to smart meters ” they will save you money” no they won’t you’ll be spending even more money on renewable power( electric) thier designed to be able to be turned off when the power company can’t keep up with demand,

So you will know not just someone but many who will be saying climate mitigation policys is ruining my day as well as my life, this will servery effect the UK in less than 5 years .

Reply to  davetherealist
May 20, 2021 10:43 am

I don’t personally know anyone who does that, but I think we all know of people who do.

Reply to  B Clarke
May 20, 2021 10:55 am

After a vigorous discussion of CAGW with a friend, I offered to give him some reading mateirl to educate himself, if he’d promies to read it. He promised, but never did. Folks are either lazy, or don’t want to have their precious preconceived notions threatened.

B Clarke
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 20, 2021 11:51 am


Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 20, 2021 12:56 pm

I had a similar situation: he “wanted” to discuss CAGW, so I suggested we settle on some ground rules. Basically: define “science”, state clearly what constitutes an “acceptable” information source, and do you or do you not agree with Feynman’s “If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.

Never heard back.

John K. Sutherland.
Reply to  B Clarke
May 20, 2021 11:06 am

Old Chinese saying:

‘No Food on table… only one problem.
Lots of food on table… many problems.’

replace the word ‘food’, with ‘job’, ‘electricity’, ‘health care’, ‘energy’, or any other human essential for survival and you get the picture.

B Clarke
Reply to  John K. Sutherland.
May 20, 2021 11:52 am


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  B Clarke
May 20, 2021 11:45 am

In my experience people I have asked to research the above never do, …

I’m reminded of an old cartoon of Frank and Ernest. They are sitting on a park bench and one of them says, “I need to get my priorities in order. But, there are a lot of other things I have to do first!”

B Clarke
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 20, 2021 11:53 am

Yes Clyde exactly ,

Timo, not that one
May 20, 2021 6:21 am

According to this guy (or gal?) people who “hold authoritarian attitudes” are less likely to engage with climate change.
So does that mean Climate Activists (AKA Warmunists) are less likely to engage with climate change?

Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 20, 2021 7:12 am

Plus eleventy-four for you!

Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 20, 2021 9:04 am

Is “How Dare You” an authoritative posture?

Or just a gormless juvenile asking a reasonable question?

John W Braue
Reply to  Mr.
May 21, 2021 1:02 pm

No, it’s a gormless juvenile asking an unreasonable question.

Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 20, 2021 10:44 am

The lack of self awareness is quite strong.

Rick W Kargaard
May 20, 2021 6:24 am

Of course climate change is happening. Why no mention of human or CO2 causation? It sounds as if their questionnaire may have had a lot of loaded questions.

Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
May 20, 2021 8:25 am

Exactly. I’ve had interactions with people with strong opinions on the subject who I then later found out didn’t even know that carbon dioxide was involved. How they connected that with emissions reduction, I have no idea.

dodgy geezer
May 20, 2021 6:30 am

Until activists produce evidence there actually is a climate crisis, I suspect their cause will continue to struggle… 

What? Isn’t an authoritative statement by activists with authoritarian attitudes good enough? If not, surely they should exclude the minority of people who don’t believe and push on with major social change regardless?

May 20, 2021 6:38 am

Every politically woke think-tank believes that governments need to spend lots of money to stimulate their economies to provide wealth-giving jobs. Short of post-war reconstruction, spending money on improving the climate is their best option. That’s because it’s impossible to control the weather, climate is 30 years of weather, and the public gullibly believes Chicken Little stories….Possibly it’s a good thing they aren’t pushing for WW3…./s

Reply to  DMacKenzie,
May 20, 2021 7:31 am

Redistributive change or a minority administered market a la democratic/dictatorial duality. That said, emigration reform to mitigate [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

They are playing with a double-edged scalpel. Woke and [morally] broke.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  n.n
May 20, 2021 9:51 am

Redistribution of wealth always has a number of middlemen to enrich themselves throughout. The poor never notice.

Mark Smith
May 20, 2021 6:38 am

Gotta love the egage with climate change- so 22% of the populatio want to marry climate change.

Reply to  Mark Smith
May 20, 2021 7:15 am

No, they’re just fantasizing about Nature fv#&!ng them up the @. The closest they’re likely to get to procreating…

Reply to  Mark Smith
May 20, 2021 9:12 am

Yeah, that’s an odd phrase. Perhaps its a google translation that came across poorly.

Serge Wright
May 20, 2021 6:41 am

“People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.”

This is a typical “Conversation” pile of manure propaganda. The climate Marxists are the very definition of authoritarian and they are the ones who promote the religion of climate change. It’s the supporters of free speech, small government and the rights of the individual that oppose climate fascism.

Jeffery P
May 20, 2021 6:52 am

When you see code words like “authoritarian attitudes,” you know you’re in for a big stinking hot mess of malarkey.

Nobody is more authoritarian than the left. That includes environmentalists and especially climate change alarmists. Every solution to the so-called “climate crisis” involves coercion, usually on a global scale.

Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2021 6:54 am

As is typical of Climate Liars, “climate change” is their shorthand for “manmade climate change”, and is a deliberate conflation of something which has always happened, and always will, aka climate change, with a total lie – manmade climate change.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2021 9:12 am

Kinda like conflating macro-evolution with micro-evolution. The existence of the latter lends no credence to the myth of the former.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 20, 2021 1:07 pm

Kinda like conflating macro-evolution with micro-evolution.

Macro and micro are redundant terms … and off topic. You’ve created a false analogy fallacy.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 20, 2021 6:32 pm

Umm, no. Macro and Micro are NEVER redundant. Is English a second language for you?

Microevolution refers to adaptation, e.g., a species of moths changing color as the environment about them changes. Macroevolution, on the other hand, refers to the silly 19th century creation myth that purports that life arose from non-life. It also worked from the ridiculous premise that there is such a thing as “simple life”. Of course, we now know there is no such thing as “simple life”. All life, even at the single cell level, is astoundingly complex. Further, macroevolution is the scientific analog to skiing up hill, since it represents a gross violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

As for on or off topic – you aren’t the Topic Police, so there’s that. Worse for you, you are simply incorrect: Bruce Cobb pointed out how the climastrologists purposely conflate climate change (which virtually no one doubts) with man-induced climate change. I replied to that.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 20, 2021 10:16 pm

English is not my second language. Far from it; it was my primary field at uni, followed by biology and oceanography.

I actually do understand what you may think the distinction between the two is, but you’re wrong. In fact it’s a distinction with no difference. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. For biologists, there is no relevant difference between micro and macro evolution The two terms are mainly used by creationists to sound scientific and muddy the water. But they have been thoroughly falsified, both legally and scientifically.

“Climate change”, as used by the AGW true believers, is not a conflation, it’s an equivocation (an appeal to ambiguity). The term was specifically chosen in order to insure that any discussion remains at cross purposes.

As for your reason to mention macro and micro evolution … you’re being disingenuous.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 21, 2021 5:59 am

It seems you wasted lots of money at uni on Engli because you think macro and micro are redundant. Since you fail so badly at your primary topic, it’s no wonder you have no idea of the vast difference between the fact of microevolution and the myth of macroevolution.

A quick search of the two terms brings up two different definitions, neither one of them offered by the group of people you smear, the ones smart enough to know everything didn’t come from nothing for no reason.

Macroevolution is the silly creation myth for willfully obtuse people who refuse to admit the patently obvious because of the moral implications. They glom onto the fact of adaptation for cover, attempting to conflate away macroevolution’s dearth.

At the least, macroevolution is further anecdotal evidence that humans are better at interpolation than they are at extrapolation. The least obnoxious aspect of macroevolution is it represents an unjustified leap forward from adaptation within a species (a result of the resiliency designed in) to the fact-free notions of species arising 1) from nothing and 2) from other species.

It would be bad enough if members of the macroevolution cult lingered at its least obnoxious traits, but they don’t. They use it as an empty excuse for their toxic sanctimony and censorious behavior towards people wise enough to see through the nihilist farce.

Last edited 24 days ago by Matthew Schilling
Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 21, 2021 6:23 am

And, to the point at hand, virtually every lousy, underhanded trait exercised by climastrologists was first committed, and is still being committed, by the nasty brutes who religiously cling to macroevolution. You mentioned ambiguity. Notice how the word “species” has devolved to be so imprecise it is virtually meaningless. A precise meaning for the word would have been counterproductive to the macro evo frauds, so they perfected it for their cause by ruining it.

Long before globaloney warmunism was a “science” that lacked any means to falsify it, long before it could explain anything and everything – macroevolution did the same. One might say they occupy the same niche in the ecology of human reasoning. Neither can be examined (in fact it is considered a sin to examine either), both are merely stipulated… and believed. Both are organized religions unworthy of adherents. It turns out, globaloney warmunism is merely the nasty little sister of the ugliest mental hag of all, macroevolution.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 21, 2021 10:24 am

It’s you who is failing at English, which is a contextual, inferential language. Of course I know that macro and micro have different meanings … but just not in an evolutionary context. Clearly I have triggered your confusion about evolution and natural selection. Just because those terms have two different meanings in English doesn’t validate their use when applied to evolution.

As for your long list of irrational complaints, abuse and ad hominem towards those who adhere to actual science, there’s nothing to say, since you have no argument to address. I’m guessing you’re a follower of ‘intelligent’ design rather than science and this is not the venue to discuss that. Creationism doesn’t interest me, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 21, 2021 4:51 pm

Yes, it is so productive to bring up an unrelated and extremely contentions topic. I think it is called “trolling”.

May 20, 2021 6:55 am

So climate activists are not authoritarian?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  pochas94
May 20, 2021 1:09 pm

“Authoritarian” is just an inappropriate term setting up a bit of gas lighting.

May 20, 2021 7:00 am

That is flat out wrong. It is obvious that people with authoritarian attitudes are MORE likely to “engage with climate change”.

John Bell
Reply to  Rudi
May 20, 2021 8:37 am

EXACTLY! and that is a perfect example of leftist projection, or gaslighting, accuse the other side of the same thing the leftists are doing, devilishly clever, but I think by now all the world sees thru them.

Reply to  John Bell
May 20, 2021 3:52 pm

Unfortunately, I think you’re not correct with your “all the world” comment. If that were true, I think we would have been able to make a start to excising this cancer from humanity.

Coach Springer
May 20, 2021 7:00 am

People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.”

Hold authoritarian attitudes? Climate change fascist eliminating the term denialist because it is ineffective. Alternatives are: Capitalist, Racist, … Fascist.

Also, How does the 97% consensus gambit hold up against exclusionary attitudes towards minorities?

Last edited 25 days ago by Coach Springer
Reply to  Coach Springer
May 20, 2021 9:15 am

That seem an odd word-salad of people the writer hates … or would like to hate … or her friends profess to hate.

But then, what is a climate activist but an authoritarian with a semi-plausible excuse to start ordering others around.

May 20, 2021 7:17 am

The bigot (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrite), you say.

Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), inequity, and exclusion.

Post-normal science is the art of the plausible (e.g. models, inference) in lieu of the probable (i.e. observation, replication, deduction).

Conceptual corruption, semantic games, conflation of logical domains, progressive dysfunction.

Science is, with cause, a philosophy and practice in the near-domain.

Lose your Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic (politically congruent), relativistic (“ethical”) religion.

That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. Baby Lives Matter.

Pat from Kerbob
May 20, 2021 7:26 am

If any less than 100% don’t believe climate is changing, we need better education.

Stating its a crisis is false and i think most people actually know that which is why they rank it so low

Jeffery P
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
May 20, 2021 10:35 am

Spot on. Climate change is meaningless. At what point has the earth’s climate never changed?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
May 20, 2021 1:13 pm

Change is the default condition of all climates. Depending on local conditions these changes have a wide range of periods, making a discussion of a “global climate” utterly pointless. There are climates with a periodicity of several centuries to climates with periods as short as 60+ years.

May 20, 2021 7:39 am

Save a bird, a bat, whack a wind turbine. Clear the Green blight. Go green. Emit [CO2].

With the evolution (i.e. chaotic system. process) of polar bear populations, seal and walrus lives are at progressive risk. Donate to World Walrus Foundation. Think of the pups!

Hold a pride parade for the lion, his harem of lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs.

May 20, 2021 7:59 am

Market economics is a democratic system, where people vote with capital (e.g. retained earnings), and, perhaps unfortunately, with credit, too. The risk is borne in the progress of authoritarianism including: single, central, monopolistic solutions that can sustain (e.g. redistributive change) progressive prices while costs are either stable, decreasing, or constrained per supply and demand.

May 20, 2021 8:11 am

I support free-market economics, I don’t hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities, but I don’t engage with Catastrophic Climate Change Hysteria.

Like any good sceptic, I believe the climate is changing and it always will. It’s not catastrophic though.

The problem with this study are many and varied. The distinction isn’t made between Climate Change, Catastrophic Climate Change and Anthropogenic Global Warming; and of course, Global Cooling is nowhere to be seen.

The ‘survey’ begins from the standpoint that Climate Change is necessarily harmful, it’s just how harmful people perceive it to be that’s in question.

It’s also implicit within the statement “People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.” that people who support free market economies (the right) are somehow automatically authoritarian, which we are anything but. The further right one goes the more individual freedom is demanded and less authoritarianism desired.

This is the usual projection of the left of course.

This is a study conducted by a guy with a PhD in Political Science, this is not serious science. If a layman like me is able to pick glaring holes in the execution and conclusions from this study, this guy really needs to go back to school.

Reply to  HotScot
May 20, 2021 9:10 am

Unfortunately, universities these days are where naturally- intelligent young people go to get dumbed down to the lowest common denominators.

Andy Espersen
May 20, 2021 8:16 am

I cannot figure out why you even mention this guy Sam Crawley and his “survey”. Are you having us on??

May 20, 2021 8:30 am

Climate Change is a man made construct. The earth has changed forever and will continue to change forever, with or without human impacts. This whole discussion is a joke. Not a single person I know has any concern about Climate Change. They all understand that Mother Nature controls everything. Ancient cultures killed virgins and made other idiotic sacrifices to impact Climate. Indigenous people of North America did special dances and ceremonies in hope of rain. Human Induced CC , AGW or whatever you call it is nonsense.

Reply to  davetherealist
May 21, 2021 7:45 am

Hey, don’t knock rain dances. It doesn’t matter whether or not they work. Everyone has a good time.

May 20, 2021 8:40 am

“People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes…”

Two inherently mutually exclusive groups. But I suspect the authors can’t comprehend that.

Old Cocky
Reply to  TonyG
May 20, 2021 3:18 pm

Ahh, but it’s an inclusive or, involving one of the peculiarities of English usage to make it look like an “and”

The statement actually covers :
“People who support free-market economics”, “[people who] hold authoritarian attitudes” or “[people who] have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities”.

“people who” is implicit in the second and third parts of the sentence. While there may well be considerable overlap between group 3 and groups 1 or 2, there will be little overlap between groups and 2.
Attitudes towards minorities is orthogonal to free market economics or authoritarianism, but as noted free market economics and authoritarianism are on the same continuum.

It was a quite clever way of covering 3 groups and making it appear they are only one.

Gary Pearse
May 20, 2021 8:51 am

““People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.”

As usual, the author of this brand of algorithmic, mindless remark, which is intended to identify himself as of the woke white folk, and at the same time, to smear free enterprise and white conservative men, is blissfully unaware of what it also reveals about him and his Tovareesh.

It is a deeply racist, parochial remark, not only vis à vis white men, but about minorities as well. The statement implies that minorities are unsuccessful in business. Where does researcher Sam categorize African American billionaire, high tech guru , Robert F. Smith ($5B) or international IT service planner and provider David Stewart ($4B) and numerous others? What about Business leaders in Nigeria, India, Japan, Korea, South Africa etc. (where whites are certainly a minority.) The biggest R-slur of all is that white wokees created, categorized, defined, and manage all of the new genders and status of minorities, and their justice is swift if any of their ‘charges’ step out if line.

Don Thompson
May 20, 2021 9:04 am

China is both authoritarian and highly racist. They are thoroughly mercantilist, not at all free market oriented. Yet their regime is notionally committed to climate orthodoxy. Repeat the survey with a representative number of Chinese.

Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 9:12 am

Also off topic- sorry, but:

“Nations must drop fossil fuels, fast, world energy body ”

This was mentioned in a newsletter- I can’t see it because I’m not paying for it- and already saw my few free items per month. Maybe somebody can copy some of the item and post it here.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 2:32 pm

just more rubbish after IEA proclamations – this from there and all you need
comment image?quality=90&auto=webp

Rod Evans
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 20, 2021 11:07 pm

This report was covered here in the UK by the Daily Telegraph, by one of their respected opinion writers Ambrose Pritchard Evans (no relation). He, or more accurately the Telegraph promoted this report by the IEA as factual well researched and a demonstration of Poacher turned game keeper, in his words.
It is the biggest load of dung seen in one dump since dinosaurs left the stage 6o plus million years ago.
When even a paper as broad church as the Telegraph, promote this decarbonisation movement of scientific idiots. You know we have reached a point when real science must be taught again, and real scientists must stand up for their profession before ignorant school drop outs from Sweden, trash the reputation of science for ever.

Peta of Newark
May 20, 2021 9:47 am

Here’s 2 possible ways to sort this…

1) More unreliable energy. ##
C’mon folks, lets give it a go. It will work or it will not work. Is there any particular point in getting all hot-n-bothered about it

2) Is this or is it not A Democracy?
What would be wrong with having a referendum on the subject.
Point Blank and court-room style, lay out the actual costs and benefits and get folks to vote on it.
Maybe like Brexit and Hillary’s non-election, ‘some’ people may get the shock of their lives.
BBC not least and thus started Trump Derangement Syndrome

## The more I think about that, the more it tickles me, or ‘Gets me Moist’. Maybe just me, probably all the excitement I can still recall of, at age= 8, helping the engineers bring electricity to ‘my’ family farm

btw EW. Careful what secrets you give away, the word you were wanting is ‘craic
English is such a fantastic language, shame so few people understand it

May 20, 2021 10:02 am

Fossil fuel use for producing goods is a zero sum game. Coal produces the same amount of CO2 wherever it’s used. If we were truly worried about CO2 proliferation we would be sending our manufacturing needs to countries that have predominantly hydro and nuclear power. France and Scandinavia come to mind.

Pat Frank
May 20, 2021 10:03 am

According to American researcher Pat Frank, people who support enslavement economics, hold ideological attitudes, or have patronizing liberal-man’s-burden attitudes towards minorities are also more likely to be frenzied with climate change.

May 20, 2021 10:43 am

“Other problems” like maybe paying the bills, and providing for a family, and college savings and housing, and retirement, and paying taxes?

Clyde Spencer
May 20, 2021 11:31 am

I conducted an online survey in the UK and found 78% of respondents were extremely or fairly certain climate change is happening.

As I understand it, the BBC and The Guardian pretty much have a captive audience for serving up ‘reality.’ Perhaps we should be surprised he didn’t come up with “97%!”

Last edited 25 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2021 11:37 am

The issue of space aliens is a serious one, but there are other, more important problems, such as prime numbers. Surely there exists a formula for them – wait, I know, we should ask the space aliens! Surely they must have figured that one out by now. Win-win.

Clyde Spencer
May 20, 2021 11:56 am

People who … hold authoritarian attitudes … are also less likely to engage with climate change.

Isn’t that expressing an “authoritarian attitude?” I guess we can assume he doesn’t engage!

Last edited 25 days ago by Clyde Spencer
May 20, 2021 12:20 pm

We now have verified, repeat occurrences of Unidentified Flying Objects breaking the laws of known physics all around us and all we can talk about is what the climate might do in 2100?

I’m pretty sure the presence of UFO’s and the verified sightings are more important than what the weather might do . But that’s just me. No one has asked Greta Thunburg or Michael Mann what they think about them, I wonder why?

May 20, 2021 1:45 pm

First, “the Conversation” is a red flag, signifying anything but journalism. As a general rule for that publication read further in any Conversation piece than that label only for entertainment value (for a given definition of entertainment).
From two surveys:

…I conducted an online survey in the UK and found…

…Fewer than 5% of 3,445 respondents in the 2017 New Zealand Election Study …

as, excerpted, author jumps to:

People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely…

2a) It is a common practice among writers of propaganda to use a survey, or any data, as if it was a scientific study, no matter what the actual survey actually says or its analysts actually conclude. For the writer’s online survey (save that phrase for another piece) there is no data or link to any survey questions, results, other analysis, or even another article in the Coversation. There is only that unsupported claim to data not in evidence accumulated by this same author.
2b) To get the writer’s characterization of the quoted demographic, there would have to be very good polling information produced by those two surveys. Otherwise, it is the writer’s pre-determined position and the reason that the piece was written. This is not confirmation bias, but the entire motivation for the appearance and publication of the piece.

If we actually, holding our noses, go to the conversation article, we find a link inserted for their review of the 2020 New Zealand Election survey (notably, not called a study). In that article, in a starting paragraph, the Conversation says:

ust 30% of Labour voters and 22% of National voters think the country is “more or less on the right path”

With more recent information, why might today’s author pick one from four years ago? Perhaps the 2017 version and the 2020 version of the survey asked different questions? Perhaps they already had the factoid (a fact-like phrase) ready for the article?
Probably, it is because the University of Wellington keeps limited access to their data for a year after their survey:

Earlier access to the data by non-collaborators and non-funders may be negotiated on a fee-paying basis.

So the only reporting on the 2017 survey had to come from the Conversation archive. The actual data from 2020 is not yet generally available for free.
But where to get a quote? Certainly in the report on their own 2020 survey, the guest writer, one of the University Professors performing the study, said (from the public summary data of the 2017 survey):

Fewer than 5% of 3,445 respondents in the 2017 New Zealand Election Study

First point — here the 2017 survey is called a study — leading a reasonable reviewer to think that this other Conversation archive piece was the source for today’s writer.
Second point — of what possible global political significance of an NZed study, primarily focused on voters of Wellington, with a sample size of less than 3500 people?

For the perspective of the Conversation, these are just quotable semi-sentences with numbers in them. The writer of this particular piece had no basis on which to make any of his claims, except his own prejudices and the credo of the green shill agenda that comes with his Conversation pay check.

Don’t get your argument source data from the Conversation, not even to rebut it. In fact, just ignore it.

May 20, 2021 2:11 pm

You can’t take this guy seriously; another political scientist, whatever that is.

May 20, 2021 2:59 pm

“Most People Think Climate Change is Serious, but Other Problems are More Important”
No prizes for guessing why-
Ban gas boilers by 2025 for net zero but how will we heat our homes? (
Not everyone has a big fat sinecured pay packet in an airconditioned sheltered workshop boofhead.

Bob in Calgary
May 20, 2021 5:04 pm

“I conducted an online survey”. Stop reading and disregard.

Craig from Oz
May 20, 2021 8:42 pm

People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.

Or, to word the claim another way, “Not our fault! Other people did it! And what’s more, they were WACISTSSSS!!!!”

Given that this is from The Conversation I would say that word salad of a line (Free-market =/= authoritarian) was only inserted so the that readers could feel smug and secure that Bad Things(tm) were caused by Other People(tm).

May 21, 2021 2:11 am

“I conducted an online survey..”
So how were the people selected to take part in the survey? Until we know the answer to that question the findings are worthless.

“People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.”
Well we can see were the author of this article is coming from.
“Hold authoritarian attitudes”. Like banning the use of coal, gas boilers, petrol cars, etc, etc?
Exclusionary attitudes towards minorities? Oh, like this you mean?
Preacher Arrested for Preaching In The United Kingdom

Chris Wright
May 21, 2021 3:38 am

“I conducted an online survey in the UK and found 78% of respondents were extremely or fairly certain climate change is happening. …”

The idiot who conducted this poll clearly has a false assumption: that if you think climate change is happening you must also think it’s a very serious problem.

I’m pretty confident that most peple here at WUWT would say climate change is happening. I certainly would. But I also believe that the climate is pretty well changing all the time e.g. the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age and the modern warming period. If we were descending into another LIA, then I would respond that the climate is changing and, yes, it is a *very* serious problem.

But most of the modern warming is clearly the planet recovering from the depths of the LIA and as such is hugely beneficial. My response to the poll today would be that I believe the climate is changing but that climate change is not a problem, it’s a benefit.
Maybe Sam will eventually realise that this explains the results of his “research”. But I’m not holding my breath….

May 22, 2021 2:41 am

Whenever i return to the UK I see 24/7 hourly propaganda about climate change from the BBC and other so call paragons of truth. As these clowns have been upping the ante as winters have been getting colder and longer with more snow so they are panicking to get their marxist agenda of slavery thrust upon the world. Telling people that they must replace their cheap gas heating systems for inefficient expensive electric power and that they must switch to a diet of raw worms and cockroaches is turning people away from this BS. The survey was conducted where? on a site populated by whom? People see that the likes of the BBC are nothing but propaganda so many are starting to question all their stories. The problem are the brainwashed millennials who have had the climate lies thrust upon them for their whole lives in the fake news media, school, entertainment etcetera.

%d bloggers like this: