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 WellingtonStraight 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: https://theconversation.com/most-people-consider-climate-change-a-serious-issue-but-rank-other-problems-as-more-important-that-affects-climate-policy-161080
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Also off topic- sorry, but:
“Nations must drop fossil fuels, fast, world energy body ”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/climate/climate-change-emissions-IEA.html?fbclid=IwAR0pdx0QVLK1tEV95d7M5TlRibH-CES5DjUYp36s9WIBs_Bw0bA0Yws3V78&mc_cid=eebc3ff86f&mc_eid=d01515c4f4
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.
just more rubbish after IEA proclamations – this from there and all you need
?quality=90&auto=webp
Joseph,
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.
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
😀
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.
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.
“Other problems” like maybe paying the bills, and providing for a family, and college savings and housing, and retirement, and paying taxes?
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%!”
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.
Isn’t that expressing an “authoritarian attitude?” I guess we can assume he doesn’t engage!
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?
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).
Second:
From two surveys:
as, excerpted, author jumps to:
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:
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:
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):
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.
You can’t take this guy seriously; another political scientist, whatever that is.
“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? (msn.com)
Not everyone has a big fat sinecured pay packet in an airconditioned sheltered workshop boofhead.
“I conducted an online survey”. Stop reading and disregard.
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).
“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 Kingdomhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rCkqXyiEQ
“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….
Chris
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.