JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Australia: more skeptics than believers, and few really care about “Climate change”

First up, despite the endless repetition in the media that the science is settled and the evidence is overwhelming, the latest CSIRO survey shows 53% of the Australian population don’t agree that “humans are causing climate change”. When the ABC gives 50% of its climate budget and time to skeptical arguments we will know it is fulfilling its charter. Right now, the ABC serves less than half the population. Secondly, even with 47% of the population agreeing that humans are “largely” causing climate change, many of these people still don’t think climate change will be that bad. The issue “Climate Change” ranks 14 out of 16 general concerns, and among environmental concerns a pathetic 7th out of 8. It seems a large section of the 47% think the warming will be minor, or even beneficial. The CSIRO has done another clumsy survey, the fourth in a series, still not learning that inaccurate survey terms make the results of most questions meaningless. The unmistakable bottom line from this is that only a minority of Australians think that humans are changing the climate in an important way. Most Australians are more concerned about their health, their income, their job, water shortages, or real pollution. They are more concerned about just about anything the researchers can name. Somehow this confuses the researchers. For perspective, a recent UK study showed that 63% of British people are skepticsthat storms and floods are probably man-made.

“Climate Change” is a useless survey term

The term “climate change” is guaranteed to produce confounded results. It’s is so obviously so, that questions ought be asked about those who design such loaded surveys (yes, I mean you Zoe Leviston and colleagues). Are they trying to find out what Australians’ think, or trying to generate meaningless statements? Are they afraid to ask meaningful questions, because they fear they won’t get the “right” answers? How do you define “climate change”? Is it (a) what the climate has done for 4.5 billion years, or (b) code for “man-made global warming”? Since the UN actually defines “climate change” to mean b, despite the literal and common sense definition of a,  most sane respondents could answer both a and b above and be right both times. Asking any question about “climate change” becomes an exercise in guessing what definition the respondent was using. Plus there is that other factor — did anyone specify a time period in the question? Even in the literal meaning, there hasn’t been much climate change in the last 15 years. Is climate change happening or not? I can scientifically answer yes, no and maybe and be right depending on the timeframe.

How about “human caused” climate change?

At least the surveyors did ask some better questions. In the end,  7.6% though climate change was not happening at all, and 38.8% thought it was caused by natural forces. So that makes 46.4% of the Australian population that are outright skeptics.  (The ABC serves this half of the population how?) 6.3% say they have no idea at all, and that leaves the group of believers at 47.3% — only 1% more than outright skeptics.

Figure 2 Typological breakdown of thoughts about the causes of climate change (N = 5219)

As we’ll see below, 80% of Australians chose not to voluntarily pay money for “the environment”, 40% of people who did act on climate change did it because they were financially better off, most people don’t rank “climate change” as a concern, and in 2013 only 16% of all Australians were “very worried”. Despite this, the lead researcher Zoe Leviston thinks that “climate change denial” is overrated. What her surveys show is that only 1 in 6 people believe the full propaganda message as pushed by the UN, the Dept of Climate Change, the Climate Commission, the ABC, and Fairfax media. Don’t expect a CSIRO or a Fairfax activist to report that.

Another finding from the CSIRO survey is that people tended to underestimate how widely accepted climate change is in the community. “Climate change denial, or contrarism, or whatever you want to call it, is overrated,” Dr Leviston said.

Denier is another loaded ambiguous term. Sometimes all skeptics are called “deniers”, sometimes it means a subgroup, usually it’s just a petty insult, so a sentence with two ambiguous terms (climate change and denial) is an elastic political fantasy, not a scientific statement. If the researchers or Hannam wrote in accurate words they could have said that less than half the population believe global warming is caused by man. They could also have said there are more skeptics than  believers. Instead they use vague terms to convey the opposite. This is not science, nor is it reporting. Does CSIRO think it serves the public with this fog? Given how far both had to go to avoid the obvious conclusions,  the purpose of the survey appears to be to report that “deniers” are a small fringe group. It’s a lobbyist’s aim. A popularity score is very important to group-thinkers. They need to know which way the herd is going. For those with political (not scientific aims), it’s important and to keep the faithful following the dogma so they need constant reminders that they are on the big team, even if they aren’t. It’s all in the spin.

Basically Australians are not worried about “climate change”

General Concerns Average Rank   Environmental Concerns Average Rank
1. Health 4.96 1. Water Shortages 3.72
2. The cost of living 5.09 2. Pollution 3.91
3. Employment 6.71 3. Water Quality 3.91
4. Education 6.92 4. Drought 4.5
5. The Australian economy 7.04 5. Deforestation 4.52
6. Crime and justice 7.76 6. Household waste 4.69
7. Electricity prices 8.03 7. Climate change 5.08
8. Affordable housing 8.31 8. Salinity 5.67
9. Water 8.38
10. The natural environment 9.63
11. Government and politics 9.91
12. Immigration 10.02
13. Drug problems 10.43
14. Climate change  10.53
15. Population 10.96
16. Terrorism 11.34

 

Australians are not active environmentalists

Only 20% of the population voluntarily give any money, even $2, to “protect the environment”. It’s pretty safe to say that if the carbon-tax were made optional, it would fail dismally. The 80% who said they had not given money to a group that aims to protect the environment are clearly not aware that they have, through their taxes, done exactly that. 82% of Australians don’t vote on the basis of environmental issues. 97% don’t belong to an environmental group. This is not a nation that wants what the Greens want.

Figure 6 Percentage of respondents engaging in community-based environmental behaviours (N = 5219)

It turns out half of those who say they have taken action for the environment are a fickle lot of unbelievers. The main priority for 43% of them was to save money. Another 21% said “a combination of reasons” which probably means, partly environmental and partly financial. If governments didn’t offer mass subsidies for “green” action, at least 40% of participants and maybe 50% would vanish immediately. And we wonder why the Greens vote fell at the last election?

Figure 8 Commonly stated reasons for engaging in pro-environmental behaviours (N = 3788)10

Australians just don’t think climate change will be that bad

The mystery of most Australians believing in climate change but not caring about it is easily solved. Even Australians who believe that humans are changing the climate don’t care, because they don’t think it will be that bad. In figure 10, it’s clear most Australians don’t believe the intensity of extreme weather events will increase much, and even less think the frequency will increase.

Figure 10 Expected future increases in intensity and frequency of events in respondents’ region (N = 5219)

 

 When it comes to temperature only 21% think it will rise by more than 1.5C in their region. These presumably are the hard-core believers. Most people think it will rise less, be the same or even be cooler, which explains why the care-factor is so low. Note that a later question asks what people mean by their region, which shows the folly of asking this question. Only 12% think of their region as meaning “Australia”, the rest are just thinking of their city or state. And given that climate models and professional modelers have no skill on any regional, state or local scale, it’s all blindfolded dart-throwing. The only correct answer to this is “don’t know”, and it wasn’t an option. Nine choices, and all of them wrong.

Figure 11 Perceived regional changes in temperature levels (N = 5290; N = 5219)14

On rainfall, clearly Australian’s are unmoved or confused. It’s fairly evenly split — nearly as many people think we’ll get more rain as think we’ll get less. They’re channeling the climate models. The shift in “alarm” propaganda from “more drought” to “more floods” has cost the alarmists credibility. A mere 12% think we’ll get more than a 15% change in rainfall, which can hardly be described as an extreme change.  How scary is 15% more rain? Not so much in the driest continent. Most Australians think rainfall will stay pretty much the same anyway.

Figure 12 Perceived regional changes in rainfall levels (N = 4274; N = 5219)

Over the last four years what we can see is the continuous shift from belief in the propaganda. Slowly but surely more people are moving away from “human induced climate change”. With the red line (“Not happening”) there is either an increase in people who think the climate never changes, or an increase in people who recognize that “climate change” is code for “man-made” change, and so they know they should answer “Not happening”.

Figure 18 Average change in the proportion of respondents endorsing opinions about the nature and causes of climate change: 2010–2013 (N = 2202)

Mysterious missing questions

Finally, several potentially useful questions asked in all the first three surveys was either dropped or not reported on. Were the answers just not the right message? Where is the original survey? Are the full results available? Last year, only 16% of people were “Very Worried” about climate change.

Figure 5 Levels of worry about climate change as a percentage of respondents [2013 CSIRO Report]

About 3% of the people who say Climate Change is not happening, also say they are very worried about climate change. So some people are not paying attention, or they think the survey is a joke…

In 2013 the CSIRO study also asked to rate “their level of support for the Federal Government’s carbon pricing scheme.” Which would be an extremely topical question given that the current government plans to remove the scheme, but it apparently it was not asked, or the results were no reported on. In 2013, 36% of people “strongly opposed” the carbon pricing policy. Only 9.6% strongly supported it.

Unraveling the contradictions

Strangely the study authors are puzzled by the contradictions in the study, and think the low ranking may not be realistic:

Zoe Leviston, a social psychologist at CSIRO and lead author of the survey, said the ranking was “surprisingly low”, not least because more than 70 per cent of respondents also judged climate change to be either somewhat, very or extremely important. Dr Leviston said the low ranking may reflect people turning off the issue because it had become so politicised, artificially pulling the ranking down.

If we pay attention to the confusion over the definitions of terms and look at the other results, it doesn’t seem surprising that it has a low rank. Apparently most people use the literal meaning of “climate change” themselves when answering questions but when asked what others think, they assume many people treat the term as it’s “coded” form. They predict many people will say they don’t believe in “climate change”. Probably most people realize the term is confounded, but are trying to answer it honestly and accurately. Sydney Morning Herald readers will remain as confused as ever. They won’t know that skeptics outnumber believers. Though at least they will know that nobody really cares anymore. Why does Peter Hannam or the researchers think that the “climate change” question means something and is worth reporting?

The survey, which polled 5219 people, found 81 per cent of respondents agreed that climate change was happening.

Do 20% of the population think that the climate is always the same (are these “ice age deniers”), or is it that they recognize that “climate change” means the religious code for man-made global warming? We can only guess. This year someone thought it would be worth adding the true believers to the don’t knows and the complete skeptics and produce a blended number combining their thoughts.

A question asking respondents to estimate the contribution humans were making produced a score of 61.7 on a scale of 0-100 per cent confidence.

A score? This informs us about national policies — how?

REFERENCES

Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. A. (2010). Baseline Survey of Australian Attitudes to Climate Change: Preliminary Report. CSIRO, Perth. Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2011). Second Annual Survey of Australian attitudes to climate change: Interim report. CSIRO, Perth. Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Malkin, S. (2013) Third annual survey of Australian attitudes to climate change: Interim report. CSIRO, Perth. Leviston, Z., Price,S.,  Malkin, S. & McCrea, R. (2014) Fourth annual survey of Australian attitudes to climate change: Interim report. See all surveys here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.6/10 (67 votes cast)
Australia: more skeptics than believers, and few really care about "Climate change", 8.6 out of 10 based on 67 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kblv3xm

143 comments to Australia: more skeptics than believers, and few really care about “Climate change”

  • #
    Grant Burfield

    Yes, yes, it’s the usual crap Climate Change survey. But isn’t it wonderful that CSIRO are employing Social Climate scientists these days.
    Or are they Climate Social scientists? Or just Social Scientists who are troughing up for the filthy lucre?


    Report this

    431

    • #
      King Geo

      CSIRO are not the only entity in Oz biased towards the “Warmist Doctrine”. How about BOM? Their obsession with warming knows no bound. For example today is the 6th day in a row they have over estimated Perth Metro’s (at Mt Lawley) max temp ranging from 2.8 degrees over to 0.8 degrees over. And they did the same ~ 75% of the time in January. It is as if they are trying to will the temperature to go higher. But maybe I am miss judging them – I am sure if you check their website you can read about the pause in Earth’s Global Temp during the past 15 years – good luck though – I am still trying to locate reference to this fact in their extensive website. Naturally there are pages and pages devoted to the dreaded “Climate Change” afflicting our beloved country – it really is pathetic.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Let me share an idea that I mooted with Bishop Hill: climate change is a myth, and the more I read and understand, the more I become convinced that this is the case. As global warming has effectively ground to a halt, a new, less obvious, but even more wicked by being so insidious monster has to be created – step forward, Climate Change!

      Now, we have a “threat” that is completely pliable, and can be moulded to fit ANY scenario that Mother Earth throws at us, no matter how often it has occurred in the past: more rain – climate change! Less rain – climate change! Colder – climate change! Hotter – climate change! Forest fires – climate change! Volcano eruption – climate change! Earthquakes – climate change! And, even more bizarre, near-miss asteroids – climate change! Nothing is beyond these people and their manipulation of the facts or any rationality.

      While (UK) winter has become apparently warmer, though the summers seem no warmer, I can accept that there has been a small amount of warming. I cannot see that it has been in any way detrimental to life on this planet (it has been generally beneficial), and there is probably scope for a lot more warming before that situation might change. What I cannot see is any change in climates, merely variations in weather patterns, as has happened throughout history.

      Climate change is a myth, and that is a message that we should be promulgating as avidly as we are the CAGW myth.


      Report this

      12

    • #
      Mark D.

      Maybe Socialist scientists?


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Jo. Take out the 6.3% Don’t Knows and the balance between sceptics and believers is statistically equal. A graph showing the movement between. believers, sceptics and don’t knows over the past 10 years would be useful. Fig 18 only tells 1/2 the story. Fig 8 is interesting. While carbon taxes have been totally useless in controlling CO2 emissions, they have made an impressive impact on peoples lifestyles (fig 8). Wasn’t this wholesale population coercion a primary consideration of the Green/socialist machine in the first place? When you consider the A$ billions spent to achieve this aim, it becomes clear just how much the Left value the reduction of resistance to their ideology and what lengths they will go to to achieve these aims.


    Report this

    282

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Kevin,

      Being a New Zealander, I would have to say that the 6.3% of Australians who don’t have a clue, is obviously under reported. I presume it ignores the vast majority who would just have made a random guess. ;-)


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        I wondered about that. Maybe the answer of choice should have been, “No worries mate, she’ll be good” ;)


        Report this

        40

        • #
          john robertson

          given every human alive today, are the descendants of persons smart enough to outwit a glacier, no worries mate is the proper response to climate catastrophists.


          Report this

          80

      • #
        crakar24

        Ah yes RW but dont forget this was not a nation wide survey, if you want real results then you need to be selective. For example imagine if you included the likes that live in lizbiff in the survey the results would be skewed in one direction because lizbiffians profit from this scam. They recieve more compensation for the carbon tax than it actually costs them (a labor bride to accept the tax).

        Financial motivation should not be included in the pie chart above.

        Cheers


        Report this

        43

  • #
    Yonniestone

    It’s like the CSIRO just keep setting up free goals, are they really that deluded?
    The use of the ambiguous terms “Climate Change” and “Denier” are quite apt, collective terms for a collective organization.


    Report this

    201

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, CSIRO stinks of politics, leftists agendas and other related rubbish. I know it won’t ever happen but they really should go back to doing real research full-time rather than wasting their time on climate change propaganda.


      Report this

      361

    • #
      Leigh

      Another great post Jo that exposes the desperation of these global warmists/alarmists.
      I personally won’t refer to it as climate change.
      Nor will I cop the carbon tax label.
      Its a tax on CO/2.
      Yonniestone, the shifty barstards changed the name when they realized what their “models” were telling them wasn’t happening.
      I’m not sure if it was the redhead or the brunette.
      The millstone the global warmists and alarmists have hung around their collective necks forever and a day stays as reminder to their stupidity.
      As the planet stubbornly refuses to warm these global warming scientist’s can take the ridicule they so “generously” handed out to those of us that dared to question.
      As pointman points out.(did I just write that?)
      ” Incidentally, never oblige them by talking about climate change, always keep sticking it to them by talking about global warming. Let them move the goal posts wherever they want, I’ll keep booting the ball between the global warming posts.”
      Damned good advice for who ever wants to get up their noses.


      Report this

      301

      • #

        Leigh,

        The problem is UNESCO has put out a post-2015 intentions report two weeks ago that says:

        “Education’s vital role in preventing environmental degradation and limiting causes and effects of climate change has not been sufficiently acknowledged or exploited.

        We have education being used to alter people’s perceptions about reality so they will feel the need for social, economic, and political change. It is global. It does not reflect reality and is grounded in rent seeking.

        And it is determined to alter values, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes while our children are at their most impressionable.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Steve

          Yes – the commies have made no secret in their desire to indoctrinate children in the ways of eco-collectivism.

          In our house, i make no apology in scientifically explaining, then exposing the climate change nonsense.

          I have even spent much time explaining to my nieces ( who are high school age ) that cliamte change is just nonsense to scare people, and the science doesnt back it either. I also encourage them to ask their teachers hard questions and to not just accept what the teachers tell them as its probably wrong.

          While I’m at it, I lay the boot into the UN as well.

          So there will be 5 less suckers for the eco-zombies to exploit.

          The warmists can just cop it sweet.


          Report this

          121

    • #
      Michael P

      Agreed on that. I’m getting rather tired of being called a “denier” because I ask questions and expect answers that make sense,as apparently that makes me a “denier” somehow,but what I’m denying in fact remains in question as when I’ve asked them to clarify the question,I’ve never received an answer that makes sense yet.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        You ARE a denier.

        You, me, Jo in particular, and many others deny the Green/Left the satisfaction of ramming through their infantile agenda without opposition, and the ability to pursue their personal vanity projects unhindered.


        Report this

        240

        • #
          bobl

          Yes it seems us naughty deniers changed the government on them last September and the CSIRO didn’t get the memo…

          CSIRO is groupthink central. It probably needs taking apart and completely reforming.


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Michael P

          I prefer the term “skeptic” as I’ve had to explain to several people, I’m quite willing to change my stance,if the facts support it,of which I’ve yet to find anything that convinces me to date.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Richard the Great

      The use of the term “climate change” without defining what it means makes this survey meaningless drivel. Ice age deniers aside (6000 year young earther fundamantalists), there are very few hardnened skeptics (me included) that would deny that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would (ceteris paribus) marginally increase global temperatures so this all becomes rather meaningless – or does it? No question about it, the use of the term “climate change” is deliberately obscurative and certainly deliberately equivocative on behalf of the statist establishment. Sow confution with disinformation and reap the required harvest from the ignorant unwashed herd. Then do your survey…again what I beleive or think is irrelvant. What does the evidence say.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    crakar24

    the big 3 scares are on the bottom….thats interesting maybe there is hope for us yet


    Report this

    110

  • #

    Thanks for that, Jo. On this decidedly cool mostly gloomy day up here in the tropics, it was a pleasure to read.
    Over the course of my professional career I have had experience in writing numerous survey questions, along with administrative forms, and documents that were to become laws. This kind of work takes time. It may be wise to assume that everything you write, every question you ask, is in some way ambiguous, and subject to alternative interpretations. You have to conduct trials before you even start. With surveys, you also have to consider the possible motivations of the respondent. Many people will have something more important to do and might rattle through without paying much attention. Others will tend to augment responses according to the presumed wishes of the organisation doing the survey, or will be influenced as a result of being paid for their time or the offer of being in a draw for a prize. Ms Leviston and colleagues either have no idea how to do this work, or the slants and ambiguities are intentional. Could be either. Any comment from the authors being “surprised” by anything indicates preconceptions and bias. As you say, they are puzzled by the contradictions in the study, but it doesn’t occur to them that the contradictions might arise from their own faulty work.
    Ask a silly question and you will get a silly answer.
    People who have no idea how people think, become social psychologists.


    Report this

    330

    • #
      ROM

      Thanks for that Martin.
      I don’t have a clue about how to do a proper survey of the the public on a specific subject but what you have just pointed out ties in with my own reaction towards most surveys I have seen and the very few I have bothered to take part in.
      A classic I came across the other day was a medically based survey apparently by a highly reputable medical organisation on the factors that will prove or otherwise how old your heart is compared to the rest of you.
      A pretty damn stupid line of thinking in any case in my view and based on a social scientist’s belief which a medical outfit has taken up, in the way people are supposed to think about heart disease.

      One of the questions was “Have you ever smoked? “Yes” or “No”
      Followed by the next question
      Have you given up smoking,? “Yes” or “No” a somewhat difficult question to answer [ sarc intended ] the choice of “Yes” or “No” to if you have never smoked.

      As in so many of these supposed surveys, the complete lack of the ability to comprehend how others might go through the thinking process [ something I have often thought about is how others might actually "think" and go through the "thinking" process compared to my own way of thinking. I will never know as I am an individual with my own thinking processes perhaps different or perhaps similar to some or all others . ] and all that means along with the complete lack of ability by the usually quite amateurish surveying promoters with a point to prove, leads to them completely missing the fact that their own glaring biases and bigotry’s are usually clearly reflected both in the questions being asked, the structure of the questions, the language being used in the questions and preambles to the survey and the supposed conclusions and interpretations of the data arising from their deliberate or otherwise bias’s and bigotries.

      All of which completely distorts the entire survey with the result that a lot of those in the public being surveyed come to the conclusion, based on their own way of interpreting and their own way of thinking along with their own hidden and open biases, that a lot of the questions in the survey are rubbish at best.

      The other factor with such surveys as the CSIRO has just run [ why the hell they just don't stick to and do some decent science again is beyond my understanding if they want to maintain their reputation which unfortunately now stinks and their funding over the long term. Funding will eventually dry up as the world moves on unless the CSIRO again goes back to doing some real science ] is the so obvious bias that shows in this survey if reports are correct. and given the propensity of the alarmists to alter, twist, and spin anything that doesn’t seem to support their ideology of a catastrophic future for the planet then who are we to believe that even in this case, the figures and data from this supposed survey haven’t been either deliberately or subtly and inadvertently altered to fit with the catastrophe meme so beloved of those who cannot conceive of a world that is entirely natural and that the species Homo sapiens is just as much a part of this world and like every other life form on this planet, is doing all it can to promote it’s own species just as every other life form on this planet is also attempting to do.
      If that means fiddling with all the various knobs of the forces that drive life on this planet, then like every other species we too will try and generally fail in our attempts to fiddle those knobs very much.
      Nature has the happy knack of ensuring that what was a settled foregone conclusion will blow back in ways never contemplated by the promoters.

      The viruses, bacteria and the hundreds of millions of other species on this planet are working busily away to stop Homo Sapiens getting to be top dog and are busy promoting their own particular species with just as much success as Homo sapiens.
      And they also are altering the environment where ever they can to suit their own species.
      It’s just that we are too damn dumb and wrapped up in our own importance to see that this is the way life works in this world

      It’s all out war out there and we as a species are in the thick of it.
      We call call it natural and Nature because this is what it has always been since life first appeared on the planet perhaps some 3.5 billion years ago.
      And we like all life and all other species know no other.


      Report this

      150

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The Social Psychologists I have met, which is not many, admittedly, have not been as all sociable. In fact I would say that they are socially inept, and unable to relate to anybody who was at all extrovert. If anything, they are worse than Actuaries.

      The phrase, “Possums in the headlights”, comes to mind.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Retired now

        @RW, that’s interesting. Most of the ones I met were extroverts without an ability to discuss anything much in detail. Not to mention incredibly boring because they were stuck in the land of making meme statements but couldn’t or chose not to go into any depth as to what was happening.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    crakar24

    Oh also we just had our annual indoctrin……..sorry induction training and “issues motivated groups” AKA WWF, Green peace etc are considered terrorist threats LOL.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Funny thing is we had an hour long spiel about a new workplace safety initiative to be implemented by none other than “Dupont”!
      It was all based on a survey done recently and guess what they discovered? yep problems with our OHS and even a neat points system to compare us with “World class Companies” well I’m just so relieved. /sarc.
      BTW if the presenter had’ve said the words “Moving Forward” one more time I was going to kick him in the Duponts.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am curious. If you have to have an annual “Induction Training” session, at the beginning of each year, do you also have an annual “Outduction Training” session, or even a “Deduction Training” session at the end of each year?

      If the latter, what are you expected to deduce from that?


      Report this

      20

      • #
        crakar24

        RW,

        We have no further training of any kind, we simply go through the same laborious training each year (death by power point).

        Regardless, i have deduced that the powers that be must look upon us as simple folk. The powers that be are not required to do said training which is a shame as one particular session would have been useful to one Mr Thomson.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Perhaps the powers-that-be consider that you have the equivalent memory retention of approximately 365 Mayflies?

          The-powers-that-be, of course, probably don’t even have that, which might explain Mr Thomson.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            crakar24

            You maybe right, throughout the year fatal flaws in procedures are presented on a regular basis however the changes required to eliminate the flaws are never incorporated into the next years induction its as if they never existed.

            Which brings us to the reason why we have induction in the first place, it is not to teach the newbie’s what to do, why expend energy on fixing something that is only used to tick a box.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Jo, you write “It’s pretty safe to say that if the carbon-tax were made optional, it would fail dismally”.

    I had thought that the purpose of a central government was to act to reflect the will of a majority of people,
    We know that this can idealistic and that exceptions have to be reserved, for example at a time of war.

    This is not war; it is a trivial matter compared to the gravity of warfare – unless it is managed so poorly that it creates enormous problems such as a flight of investment capital because of too much green ideology in legislation or regulation.

    It is about time that Government started assaying the real will of the people, not how to gather more votes. Sadly, it seems it has ever been thus.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      bobl

      I had thought that the purpose of a central government was to act to reflect the will of a majority of people,

      hahahaha, snigger HAHAHA gaap HAHAHA [passes out]

      Remember the last government, you know the one that was willing to sell out 99.2 % heterosexual community for the benefit of the 0.8% GLBT community.

      Draws breath, HAHAHA……


      Report this

      60

  • #

    ” they have taken action for”… “a combination of reasons”
    This would include; Because a guy knocked on the door and gave us those free overhead self detonating mercury and glass schrapnel spreaders. It may also include fighting hard to prevent wind turbines from killing off all the bats and birds.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Andrew

    82% of Australians don’t vote on the basis of environmental issues.

    Of the 18% that DO vote on the basis of environmental issues, you shouldn’t assume they’re warmists / greens either. A significant number may well have voted AGAINST the World’s Biggest Carbon Tax and the dishonesty that led to it.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    jbe

    I notice they have now dropped all questions on political persuasion vs belief in human induced climate change. That was one of the strongest correlations from previous reports.


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Bananabender

    The CSIRO will be very pleased. It will have an excuse to spend more money to convert the “heretics”.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Just be grateful that burning heretics at the stake increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and is therefore forbidden by Themsonhigh.

      It is wasn’t for that fact, we would all be toast by now.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Vic G Gallus

    I think that a poll before the name change would have had closer to 100% of respondents agreeing that climate change was happening, just not necessarily global warming.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    “Climate Change” is such a broad term.
    The Global Warming activists have changed the term many times to suit their propaganda agendas.
    They have convinced a large spectrum of governments to change policies to a “greener” agenda…Even though the politicians couldn’t care less as long as it had generated jobs. But is was at a cost as well with all this crappy “green energy” that had to be heavily subsidized by the tax payers.
    The greater good of the 1% at a cost to the 99%!


    Report this

    80

  • #
    cedarhill

    Perhaps Australians are coming out of the fog and might continue on their road back to energy and industrial sanity. Might even see energy costs drop a bit.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    A distinct difference between promoters of Global Warming and those who seriously question the man made bit is that the promoters, Lord Monckton’s Profiteers of Doom, are organizations including some previously very reputable ones. Unbelievers are always individuals. The such people can do is create a petition like the Oregon Petition or one person blog sites. All the misinformation, all the hype seems to come from the Presidents or CEOs of highly resourced organizations and no group could have a greater interest in promoting man made ‘Climate Change’ scenarios than the group setup by the UN in 1988 to investigate whether the actions of man were producing Climate Change. It would have collapsed in 1989 if it had found this was not happening. As it is Mr Pauchari who has been pushing this barrow since 2002 and living a life of luxury and reputedly flew 360,000km last year to warn people of the dangers of flying.

    Daniel Hannan, British member of the EU parliament suggested in Melbourne in 2012 that it would take 20 years for an international bureaucracy this large to collapse even if the rationale was proven to be utterly false, especially given that Big Carbon is now generating $340Bn a year from windmills to research to carbon taxes. We have to wait for all the Profiteers to retire.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      The fault with Hannan’s and your calculations is that you assume that this monster grew organically from opportunists, just a positive feedback of people seeing that you could get a way with it and jumping on board. From computer modelling, that 20 years is expected to blow out even if only lightly coordinated by power-hungry people.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Bananabender

      AGW was originally created by Shell and BP to sell North Sea gas in the 1960s. Big Business is controlling the scam not the UN. The IPCC are merely small time opportunists picking up the crumbs dropped by the multinationals.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Taking even the 47 % that believe CC is happening and that man is ‘largely’ causing it, theyre only agreeing with the IPCC.
    Did they ask, is it going to be catastrophic and is it human release of CO2 that’s causing and is it even worth bothering about ?

    When you take the Green out of Green Left what’s left ?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    one-time consumer protector, Ralph Nader, who has made presidential runs as a Green & as an Independent, proves with the following that he has no understanding whatsoever of the science, the politics or the financials of CAGW.

    but he knows to use “climate change”; he knows to speak of “deniers”; he knows to frame “deniers” as republicans. and he believes Steyer, Bloomberg, Paulson & Gore are genuinely concerned about saving the planet from CAGW! yikes.

    7 Feb: Albany Tribune: Ralph Nader: Climate Disasters and Ending Congressional Stupor Now!
    Every year brings the world more climatological science that man-made climate change, or overall global warming, is chronically worsening.
    Every year, from Antarctica to Greenland, from the Andes to Alaska, the ice is melting, the permafrost is melting, and very soon the Arctic may have a re-unprecedented ice-free season. Every year, more and more businesses are speaking out on how climate change is damaging their businesses. Insurance companies were in the lead on sounding the alarm on global warming. Just a few days ago, Coca-Cola’s vice president for environment and water resources, Jeffrey Seabright, told the New York Times that “increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years” were affecting the supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, “as well as citrus for [Coca-Cola’s] fruit juices.”…
    In Washington, Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, has put climate change on center stage for becoming what he said is a chief contributor to rising global poverty rates…
    University students are increasingly demanding their schools’ divestment of stock from fossil fuel companies.
    Every year, its seems records are being set for sea level rises, more furious storm surges, heat waves, floods, typhoons, and droughts…
    The Republicans are aggressive climate-change deniers. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) calls global warming a massive hoax and is willing to debate any Democrat. While, by and large, most Democrats are concerned but unwilling to make it a campaign or electoral issue. They’re even unwilling to take on Mr. Inhofe…
    The Pentagon’s study a decade ago would be brought to bear with its dire message that climate change is a national security priority…
    Where would the $25 million annual budget come from for such a lobbying group working to prevent trillions of dollars and millions of lives from being lost?…
    Megabillionaire Michael Bloomberg, just named the United Nations special envoy for climate change and cities, already funding efforts to reduce coal usage, could write the check out of his hip pocket. Billionaire Tom Steyer, a big time opponent to the XL pipeline from Canada and a proven environmentalist from California, could also handily write the check.
    Very wealthy Henry M. Paulson Jr., former head of Goldman Sachs and U.S. Treasury Secretary, who is working with Bloomberg and Steyer to commission an economic study on the financial risks connected to climate change, region by region across the U.S. economy, could also write the check.
    And don’t forget Al Gore, the leading global publicist of what climatologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University called a “clear and present danger to civilization.” Former Senator Gore – who received the Nobel Prize in 2007 for highlighting the perils of global warming and climate change – could also fund and lead such a group.
    Why, readers may ask, am I suggesting a sum small enough that one person could foot the bill for such a portentous peril? Because small sums are better at shaming all those well-endowed institutions and individuals, who know better, but inexplicably have not transformed their concerns into really powerful, serious pursuits for the human race and its more vulnerable posterity.
    (Ralph Nader is a politician, activist and the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.)
    http://www.albanytribune.com/07022014-ralph-nader-climate-disasters-ending-congressional-stupor-now-oped/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Robert O

    I think that the average person is turning-off to the continuing hyperbole of the media and its pro global warming, now climate change, stance; there is a realisation that previous predictions made by the pundits have not come to pass, as well as an increasing body of well qualified people who disagree with the basic science. On top of that we have various revelations of fraudulent activity such as “Climategate”. You can fool most of the people most of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time is an appropriate adage.


    Report this

    100

  • #

    Like with many surveys, this one is flawed.
    The statement “I think that climate change is happening, and I think that humans are largely causing it.” needs to have two alternative endings.
    (a) but its no big deal.
    (b) and I am really scared for the future consequences.
    It is only the latter that can possibly justify policy. The only survey that made this discussion was Brendon Shollenberger’s last month.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Timo Soren

    It seems that the group madness of the prior administration is lifting. Perhaps they had put something in your drinking water and now its run out.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    AndyG55

    In Figure 6, I would have been one of the small percentage answering “Yes” to all 5 questions.

    I wonder how many of the trolls can say the same.

    I definitely voted Liberal last election because of an environmental issue, in the hope of getting rid of the carbon tax and RET. :-)


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Peter C

      Yes same here.
      I have picked up litter on Clean up Australia Day(and other days),
      Planted trees
      Voted to get rid of a carbon tax
      Joined the IPA and other Environmental organizations
      Given donations to save our country from Green Activists and their destructive actives.

      Yet if I were to answer those questions correctly I would be counted as supporting Green Party policies when in fact the opposite is the case.


      Report this

      50

  • #

    Scientology has proven that you can scare some of the people all of the time with pseudo science but aliens in Volcanoes? Thetans? Who would have thought it? There have always been frauds and charlatans predicting doom, the doomsayers. Think of the children and the childrens’ children!

    Never before has modern science been used as a religion on such a scale. It makes the absurd ‘rapture’ seem trivial and Scientologists dream of having real scientists, even the United Nations supporting the fantasy. In the new religion of Global Warming the high priests have even recreated the medieval concept of carbon indulgences, where you do not stop doing what your a doing, but pay money to the UN to be forgiven. Future generations will study the phenomenon of Global Warming mass hysteria and Climate Change as a religion. They will not believe what they read.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    90% of people in the UK don’t believe in God or Jesus, OK I made that up, but in the right ball park, so God and Jesus will exist not on those results, but on the fact or not they do or not exist! Therefore it is pointless asking a population whether they think ACC exists or not, because it will be the science that has the correct answer. Regardless of what people think!


    Report this

    114

    • #
      Winston

      So the corollary of that BA4, is why do those on the alarmist side spend so much time on pointless surveys of no consequence to anyone but the most lame minded, in order to justify ignoring those observations that don’t conform to their theory?


      Report this

      120

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        Because we are armed with the reality of the situation!

        ‘hy do those on the alarmist side spend so much time on pointless surveys’ er, I don’t think we do! I couldn’t be bothered with such ‘public opinion’, it’s what the science says that matters! If you were just to listen to the ‘media’ certain parts in America believe there is a secret base where they have a UFO complete with ET!


        Report this

        07

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It matters not, whether people believe in God or Jesus. What matters, in religion, is whether or not God and Jesus, care about people. Praying is about asking God to care, in the hopes that God will not say, “Yeah, whatever.”

      So I agree with you that it is pointless asking the population for their opinion on climate. At the end of the day, climate does not give a stuff, about what people think and do, and it will simply self-correct for anything that we mere mortals can throw at it.

      It is stupidly arrogant to think that several billion mobile bags of water and bones can impact something as huge as a planetary atmospheric system.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘So I agree with you that it is pointless asking the population for their opinion on climate.’ correct, because it’s what is actually happening to the climate that matters and the best people to know that are climate scientists!

        ‘and it will simply self-correct for anything’ that is an outmoded and obsolete methodology, to the extent that the climate will put itself right for us humans, what would the mechanism be?

        ‘It is stupidly arrogant to think that several billion mobile bags of water and bones can impact something as huge as a planetary atmospheric system.’ well if that refers to man made co2, there is a big problem with that:-

        Co2 I find you guilty as charged!

        How can small amounts of co2, influence global warming?

        ‘Dr Karl who joins us from the ABC studios in Sydney…[yes co2 is causing the global warming thing]…Anthony from Leeds…{what percentage is global warming a natural cycle or helped by human…it’s my belief that it’s just a percentage man made and a percentage natural cycle}…[while we humans have been on this planet…the normal state of the climate is an ice age…100,000 years of ice age and then 20,000 years of none ice age…the water to make this ice come out of the oceans…this is the normal state of affairs, you can walk from the British Isles to Europe…the co2 levels are the highest in the last 650,000 years. They are rising faster than any time in the last 3 million years…but we are causing an extra…the co2 levels…we have taken the levels from 280ppm to 380ppm (not current levels) so that is a difference of 100ppm…or 1 part per 10,000, but people have said how come, can 1 in 10,000 have any effect what so ever. But if we take a moderately large male they weigh 100Kg which is 100,000 grams, so 1 part per 10,000 of that is 10grams… if you were to give that person…10 grams of morphine they would be dead…so you can see the argument that’s given, the change in co2 level is only 1 in 10,000, so minuscule is a ridiculous argument… it is very easy to…with small forces]’

        So listen for yourself :-

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-3-Lf4-49M


        Report this

        07

        • #
          Heywood

          First you say “the best people to know that are climate scientists!” then quote Dr Karl?

          His specialty is biomedical engineering you dimwitted hypocrite.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      crakar24

      Black Adder,

      Far be it from to add to the work of RW and Winston but i would like to point out as the others have stated the results of these polls are simply a representation of their beliefs.

      But what is belief? Well i believe in two things, i believe in cows for i have seen then i know they exist and i believe in little green men, when i die cows will live on however my belief in little green men will die with me.

      AGW is the same, the belief of doomsday armageddon is upon us will slowly die off as poeple like slowly die off. As RW said we are just a mobile bag of water and bones (Who could ever think up such a thing :-) )


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Mark D.

      90% of people in the UK don’t believe in God or Jesus, OK I made that up, but in the right ball park,

      Can’t even get that right…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Here it is!
    1 hour old at time of this comment:

    Global warming: Australian scientists find explanation for pause in rising temperatures

    Who denies the pause now?


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      The Bolta is on to him already. This fruitcake England is worse than the Flim Flam man.


      Report this

      41

    • #
      handjive

      Quote:
      “The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said.

      “We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field.”

      Step up the first denier:

      David Appell — May 7, 2013
      “In fact, their reanalysis finds that the total of all oceans actually lost heat during the 1990s, at a rate of about -0.26 Watts per square meter of ocean surface area.
      By contrast, the ocean gained about 1.19 Watts per square meter in the first decade of the 21st century, most in the top 700 meters.
      That gain, Trenberth says, is associated “with changes in the winds and changes in the ocean currents that are associated with a particular PDO pattern that has dominated in the 2000s.”
      So it’s not surprising that there was a significant warming of the surface during the 1990s, but not over the past decade.
      . . .

      Bonus:
      Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96

      Contrast the R² of .96 from this simple model (near a perfect correlation coefficient (R²) of 1) vs. the poor correlation (R²=.44) of CO2 levels vs. temperature.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Bulldust

        The paper is here:

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

        I like how they state (near the bottom):

        Competing financial interests
        The authors declare no competing financial interests.

        Well duh … their are no competing interests when your funding is perfectly aligned with government climate change policy ….


        Report this

        40

        • #
          crakar24

          BD,

          We have a place at work where we can “discuss” science, i stated the opinion piece (SMH) was bullshit (which it was) however in regards we only have the abstract so cannot confirm its validity

          This study is suggesting the missing heat is now accumulating in the oceans, obviously without access to the paper neither of us can comment any further on its validity.

          I was then abused by a friendly warmbot for the usual reasons (you expect this from people that cannot comprhend the english language), one thing he stated was that i misunderstood the abstract and claimed

          This article postulates that the reason for the “missing atmospheric heat” is a combination of “subsurface ocean heat uptake” AND an increase in the kinetic energy of the Pacific trade winds. Their claim to fame is that atmospheric kinetic energy as previously been missing from climate models. You wanted an accurate climate model? Maybe you just got one: something that explains all the observed phenomena, and still notes that the previously-postulated rate of energy increase in the system we call the global climate is correct.

          He has been rather quiet since i pointed out the abstract does not contain the word “Kinetic”. No doubt he is using his staggering grasp of the english language to create another linguistic trap for himself.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      handjive

      Jan 22, 2014:
      Tipping El Ninos harder as Pacific sensor array output ‘collapses’

      Floating sensors that have predicted extreme weather events for decades and saved lives in the process have been left to “collapse” amid vandalism and US budget cuts.

      The United States and Japan set up the Tropical Pacific Observing System – made up of about 70 buoys – after a large El Nino event in 1982-83 caught forecasters unaware.
      Fourteen years later, the moored devices helped provide warnings of the “super” 1997-98 El Nino almost a year before it hit, probably saving lives and preventing billions of dollars in damage.

      Sea levels rising, and so is the CSIRO’s margin for error
      RECORDS of global sea level rises may be out by as much as 14 per cent on official findings, a climate change study released shows.
      The second CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate report found ocean levels had risen 210mm around the world on average since 1880.
      But the study also acknowledged that the margin of error for the average result was plus or minus 30mm.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Steve

      I just farted – I think I extended the non-warming period…at least my wind might make more sense than his hot air…he he


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Visiting Physicist

    Climate models are wrong because they are all based on an assumption of there being isothermal temperatures in a planet’s troposphere in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases.

    Don’t you find it interesting that they say that the greenhouse gas water vapour does most of the warming, perhaps 30 degrees of it, with carbon dioxide helping with the other 3 degrees. Water vapour may well vary in different regions. There may be only a third of the mean in a dry desert area for example, so the IPCC authors are, in effect, telling us that water vapour is raising the temperature by only, say, 10 degrees in a dry desert area. Thus the mean temperature in such a location would be below freezing point.

    I don’t care how many peer-reviewed published papers in respected journals there may be supporting this absurd conjecture, I’m not falling for the bluff. It’s not supported by physics.

    The temperature has already been raised by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in the troposphere which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us must happen as an autonomous result of the spontaneous evolving of thermodynamic equilibrium. It does not happen as a result of any lapsing process. There is no surface at the base of the Uranus troposphere and there is no solar radiation or internally generated thermal energy reaching that layer. Gravity has trapped thermal energy over the life of the planet and the whole temperature plot in the Uranus atmosphere is maintained by gravity, and so too is the case on Earth.

    I am the Australia author of published articles and papers on climate matters, and my new book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” will be available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble by early in March.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      AndyG55

      “gravitationally induced temperature gradient”

      Thanks.. yep a bit of properly applied physics goes a long way ! :-)

      I shall look for this book when it comes out.

      If possible could you post a link to on-line sales when its available.. assuming that’s ok by Jo. :-)


      Report this

      30

    • #
      justjoshin

      Is anybody else expecting the Greens to announce a gravity tax soon?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Manfred

    The commonly spouted and nauseatingly transparent attempt to manipulate by inducing guilt when using the phrase ‘for your children and your grandchildren’ appears to have little traction.

    Fig. 8. ‘Commonly stated reasons for engaging in pro-environmental behaviours’ highlights that 4% of respondents believe in ‘for the future’.

    It’ll be interesting to see whether the Green spin-meisters pay attention.

    For lighter relief at The Conversation, they’re peddling some recently published research from the UNSW, the very same institution’s climatology dept. that gave birth to The Ship of Fools.
    ‘The Pause’ is now being attributed to stronger winds driving the excess heat down into the ocean — well, at least in model world. This research, led by Prof. Matthew England, professor of climatology at the University of New South Wales. He is reported to say:

    Previous climate models missed this effect because the strong winds had never been observed before.

    The models are improving all the time, but in this case they missed the dramatic observed wind trend. Suddenly something comes along like this wind acceleration that goes beyond what you’ve ever seen before, so maybe it’s no surprise that the models don’t capture it when it is such an extreme event.

    The article goes on to report Steve Rintoul, a CSIRO researcher adding :

    More than 93% of the warming of the planet since 1970 is found in the ocean, according to the IPCC report released last week. If we want to understand and track the evolution of climate change, we therefore need to look in the oceans. The oceans have continued to warm unabated, even during the recent “hiatus” in warming of surface temperature

    Professor England completes the article with the catastrophist funding clincher:

    We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Manfred

      Apologies handjive #24, for some reason I didn’t see your post referring to this ‘research’ based on models before posting!

      On another point, don’t the folk at CSIRO realise that if the Ministry of We Know Best for Your Own Good steal your money for spurious reasons tax you to save the environment, there is less discretionary spending in the pot, and considerably less disposition and wealth to ‘donate’ money to ‘protect the environment’? (see Romer & Romer 2007)

      One of the unintended and paradoxical consequences of central control, is that once ‘they’ assume responsibility, the syndrome of ‘it’s no longer my problem’ sets in. One could go on here, far beyond climastrology and environmentalism….not my problem though.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        handjive

        Hey Manfred.

        Mate, all’s good.

        It’s good news for Australia.

        For the world!

        It’s not the atmospheric carbon(sic) that causes Global Warming’, but the oceans!

        No need for direct action, carbon(sic) taxes, carbon(sic) markets.

        Maybe when the ‘pause’ starts again … and here as next week’s lotto numbers!


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … using the phrase ‘for your children and your grandchildren’ appears to have little traction.

      Damn right. My kids just call me “A Denier”, because they are parroting what they have been told at school and University. So, if that is what they have been told, then why should I care?

      They will inherit the world that they create by their own beliefs and actions. It is their children and grandchildren that I worry about.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Neville

    There will be more sceptics in the USA after their brutal winter.
    Now Detroit is under record levels of snow and two thirds of the country is covered by the white stuff as well.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/09/detroit-not-only-buried-under-debt-but-record-snow-too/#comments

    Viner couldn’t have been more wrong with his stupid forecast 13 years ago.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    bobl

    The survey damns itself, the warmists own science says that CO2 plus water feedbacks reduce the release of radiation from the surface to space. Since frost is caused by radiation to space it follows that frost should be directly reduced by the actions of CO2 yet the survey treats frost as a concern of global warming. Everyone that marked frost as being a concern should be bundled into the “No idea” category.

    I’d love to see the demographics re resoonses VS education.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Matty

    Lesson learnt to all activists. You can rope in millions of comfortable westerners to manufactured issues that take on a psuedo-spiritual nature any old time, but you can’t have unfettered access to their wallets.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Rod

    Mathew England has apparently just discovered that climate change is the cause of climate change.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Bernie K

    Climate scientists: First you take them seriously, then you laugh at them, then you ignore them!


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … then they win.

      Be careful of misquotes or partial quotes. They can bite you in the bum.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      john robertson

      I prefer;And then you force the pollies to yank their funding.
      I am coming to regard the climate scientists,as the poor deluded tools of this grand farce.
      As public enthusiasm wanes for “save the planet by throwing your money away” wanes, regret, finer pointing, victimization and scapegoating all become the new fad.
      I do not see any roll, other than sacrificial goat, for most of the consensus tools.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    Good to see an admission from an hysteric about the warming hiatus. But why lie and try to cover it up in the first place?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_matthew_england_deny_the_warming_pause_he_now_concedes/#commentsmore


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Peter H

    Great article Jo, and absolutely right. The term Climate change is deliberately ambiguous. It is time to stop using it, and use something more accurate, i would suggest people revert to the first scare title global warming to differentiate it from natural climate. Or alternatively coin a new term such as climate fiction, climate fraud etc i am sure their could be many better variations than this does anyone have a name to label this damn thing?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Henry Clark

    For many in the public who spend little time on the issue, personal perceptions on CAGW are largely shaped by how weather changes or not in their experience. With that and with often less naivety towards what the media tells them to believe, belief is lowest amongst those with the most experience, several decades old or older.

    Warmists would say such is wrong, that personal perceptions can’t detect the relevant shift in the global average. Such is superficially a partial truth, with global warming having been about a 0.6 K temperature change over the past century in a global average near 298 K, about a tiny 1 part in 500 change in absolute temperature, thus below the threshold of necessarily direct perception. But the real message of the CAGW movement, as well understood by many in the general public, is implying terrible heating and sea level rise to a magnitude directly noticeable (not “in future decades you’ll never notice the difference”), and “Joe Average” can correctly notice the lack of such.

    In the end, whether or not for the most nominally sophisticated reasons, such casual skeptics come to the right overall conclusion.

    Climate is always changing, and to attribute its recent history primarily to natural causes is correct:

    As the author of a Shaviv 2005 paper notes, the combination of “increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF” (cosmic ray flux) “contributed a warming of 0.47 +/- 0.19 K” over the past century, and “this [natural] contribution comes out to be [about] 0.5 +/- 0.2K of the observed 0.6 +/- 0.2K global warming.

    Temperature, cloud cover, humidity, sea level, and glacial extent trends over the past century and the past millennium can be all tied together. There is a common prime cause and excellent explanation for all from the Little Ice Age, to the global cooling scare of the 1970s, to the global warming scare, and the recent “pause” in global warming, as illustrated in http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg

    (The preceding also includes the Shaviv 2005 reference among others).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    “most Australians … even less think the frequency will increase.”

    Even fewer, dammit!

    For countable nouns (in the plural) it’s “few, fewer, fewest”.
    For uncountable nouns, it’s “little, less, least”.

    Forget Warmists for the moment. Let’s first hang the so-called English teachers from the lampposts and get some real English teachers from Singapore.

    Then we can get back to Matthew England and his latest excuse for “the pause”.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    cannot find a single MSM subscriber to Reuters carrying this story:

    U.S. coal-fired electricity hits 3-year high due to cold weather
    NEW YORK, Feb 7 (Reuters) – Blistering cold weather across the United States in the last six weeks sent power generated by coal to the highest point in three years as utilities relied on the carbon-heavy fuel to meet peak demand, data from Bentek Energy showed on Friday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4013485


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Stop and think about this for a minute.

      Whenever there is a really desperate need for more electrical power, and consumption skyrockets, just where does all that extra power come from?

      It comes from power plants which actually can supply power on demand, those coal fired plants on spinning reserve, now called into action, because they can supply large amounts of power. Also called in are those peaking Power units, asked to run longer, something they can also do on demand, and they are Natural Gas fired power plants. Both are the big CO2 emitters, so CO2 emissions rise considerably.

      They can rabbit on all they like about CO2 emissions, but it all goes right out the window, as hyperbole, as soon as REAL electrical power is required.

      At the same time, wind power goes missing, unable to handle the extreme cold, and just how much solar power do you think there would be with panels covered by snow, from heavily overcast skies.

      Real power needs require real power plants.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    btw i don’t know why Nader’s piece i posted earlier appeared in online Albany Tribune, but the Trib is owned by this lot – Seractus & BuzzFuture:

    Seractus – About Us
    Seractus executives have vast experience in the area of industrial and
    strategical consulting, risk management, energy, renewable energy,
    communications, external affairs and in the defense sector…
    Being a part of a Multinational company, Seractus connects and represents
    different industrial sectors from Automotive to renewable energy…
    http://www.seractus.com/

    love Duncan’s time advising the Spanish Govt when they went bust, partly due to job-destroying, expensive renewables!

    LinkedIn: Robert Duncan
    President and Founder
    Buzz Future LLC…
    COO & Shareholder
    Seractus SL …
    International Communications Consultant
    Spanish government – Ministry of Science and Innovation
    March 2008 – September 2010 (2 years 7 months)
    International Media Communications and Consultant for Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the ministry responsible not only for Technology Research and Development, but for Higher Education…
    Areas of emphasis include Energy Trading, Renewable Energy (Solar and Wind), Higher Education, Crisis Management, Reporting (online marketing) and ICT..
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertduncan


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thingadonta

    Actually the one at the top of the list should be the potential for human beings in all ages to use ideology to exploit the forces and cycles of nature for power and control of the population. The Incas did it, the Mayans did it, and many other ancient cultures and religions did it. An ancient version of totalitarian bureaucratic ideology. Nothing has changed in human nature


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ian H

    I wonder how many people from Darwin or Alice Springs predicted an increased frequency or intensity of snowstorms in their region. The temptation to take the p*** would have to be almost irresistable. Silly questions demand silly answers. The sad thing is that the muppets who analysed the results would have taken those answers seriously.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    9 Feb: Sun News, Canada: Ezra Levant: Charities have no place in Suzuki’s political theatre
    Last fall, three anti-oilsands lobby groups hosted the “Trial of Suzuki.” It was a strange gimmick — a mock trial wherein David Suzuki would be “prosecuted” for treason because of his environmentalist views…
    But why was this PR gimmick co-sponsored by the Royal Ontario Museum, a public institution using taxpayers’ money? The ROM is a non-political charity. Its mandate is to be educational, not political.
    It’s one thing for lobby groups to rent a room at the ROM to have their own event. But that didn’t happen. Suzuki’s lobby group, the $10-million-a-year David Suzuki Foundation, and another environmentalist group called the Ivey Foundation, and a foreign anti-oil lobby group called the Cape Farewell Foundation, got the room for free. More than that, they had the labour of a dozen ROM staff – paid for by taxpayers. And the ROM put their logo on the whole thing.
    Since when do museums take sides in ongoing political debates?…
    Who gets to choose the ROM’s political views?
    In this case, the answer is Dave Ireland and Bep Schippers. They’re global warming activists who work as executives at the ROM. According to ROM e-mails obtained by the Sun, last summer Ireland wrote an e-mail to Schippers showing her the proposal for the Suzuki stunt, saying: “hey Bep, in confidence, check this out… freakin cool idea… I agree with Suzuki’s manifesto.”
    Schippers wrote right back: “Hey Dave. Super freaking cool idea and we are going to make it happen no matter what. It’s the edgiest thing the ROM has been involved in since the history of the ROM and the only way we would be able to pull something like this off is with a partnership like this.” As in, to team up with three anti-oil lobby groups.
    Schippers was clearly aware that this was outside the ROM’s rules of partisanship: “It may be rocky – but totally worth it in the end. I’m willing to rock the internal boat on this one.”
    And here’s the exact moment when the ROM ceased to be a museum and officially became a partisan anti-oil lobby group:
    “We the ROM shouldn’t have to be neutral. We are allowed to take sides — it’s science man,” wrote Schippers…
    Free speech, right? But do taxpayers a favour – don’t make us pay for it through government


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    8 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Fury as Pickles says aid abroad stops floods here: Minister claims cash helps in battle against global warming
    Residents whose homes are underwater branded his claims ‘nonsense’
    By Tim Shipman and Tom Kelly and Sian Boyle
    A cabinet minister sparked fury last night after claiming that giving billions of pounds to the Third World would help prevent flooding in Britain.
    Communities Secretary Eric Pickles rejected demands from Tory MPs that the overseas aid budget be raided to help stricken areas of the West Country, claiming that the money would help curb global warming.
    His claims prompted anger among residents whose homes are under water and from Conservatives, who branded the claims ‘nonsense’…
    Mr Pickles yesterday offered an ‘unreserved apology’ for the failure to dredge the Somerset Levels and signalled that Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith should resign over the ‘mistake’…
    2.9BILLION POUNDS SPENT ON FOREIGN CLIMATE AID
    Britain has pledged nearly £2.9billion of taxpayers’ money – around 100 pounds per household – in climate aid to help developing countries over four years.
    It includes 15million pounds to help cattle farmers in Colombia practise ‘green agriculture’, such as adapting cows’ diets to reduce the methane they produce, and 14million pounds to build wind farms and other renewable energy sources in Uganda…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555438/Fury-Pickles-says-aid-abroad-stops-floods-Minister-claims-cash-helps-battle-against-global-warming.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    here we go again:

    10 Feb: The Conversation: Adeshola Ore, editor of The Conversation: So long Sochi: cities set to be too hot to host Winter Olympics
    Only six of the previous 19 Winter Olympics host cities would be suitable to host the Games again by the end of this century due to warming temperatures, according to a new analysis.
    Average February maximum daytime temperatures at the 19 former Winter Olympics host cities have risen from 0.4°C in the 1920s to 1950s, to 3.1°C in the 1960s to 1990s, and 7.8°C in the 2000s to 2010s.
    The research was conducted by scientists at the University of Waterloo in Canada, using historical data from weather stations near Olympic venues, as well as regional projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    The current host city of Sochi will be among the worst-hit…
    But Vancouver, Squaw Valley, Sarajevo and Oslo will also be climatically unreliable…
    Professor David Karoly, an expert in climate change variability from the University of Melbourne, said the study’s results show that snow reduction and climate change will need to be taken into account when planning Winter Olympics venues…
    http://theconversation.com/so-long-sochi-cities-set-to-be-too-hot-to-host-winter-olympics-22899

    THE WRITER:

    LinkedIn: Adeshola Ore
    Editorial Intern at The Conversation Media Group
    Secretary at University of Melbourne Media and Communications Student Society
    Politics Editor at Riff Raff
    I recently completed an editorial internship at The Conversation, which allowed me to build upon my editing, news writing and social media skills.
    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/adeshola-ore/70/628/146

    22 Jan: Time Mag: David Stout: Did You Know It Doesn’t Actually Snow in Subtropical Sochi?
    Sochi is Russia’s sunshine destination
    Sochi is about as far as you can get from the sprawling snow-covered steppes of the popular imagination. A 37-hour train ride from Moscow, it’s located in Russia’s Deep South, on the Black Sea, and boasts palm trees, pebble beaches and sulfur hot springs that were once frequented by “Soviet leaders, acclaimed cosmonauts, actors and other members of the Soviet jet set,” according to the Sochi Project. There is no snow in the city of Sochi itself. That doesn’t present problems for indoor events like figure skating or curling, but for Alpine sports like skiing, athletes will have to travel to Krasnaya Polyana in the Caucasus Mountains, a few dozen kilometers away. Organizers are also depending on 500 snow guns and 710,000 cu m of snow taken from the mountains last winter and kept in storage…
    COMMENT: Hacknaround
    This is a silly, closed-minded article. Look back four years to Vancouver for your answers.
    There is snow in the City once every 3 or 4 years for a few days at most. They pulled off the finest winter olympics to date. Athletes had to travel by bus to Whistler for the major ski events. For the Vancouver mountain events like snowboarding, they had to truck snow from 180 kilometers away in Manning Park….
    http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2014/01/22/sochi-weird-facts/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 Feb: Australian Financial Review: Phillip Coorey: Manildra boss says ethanol report ‘absolute rubbish’
    Manildra boss Dick Honan has disputed the findings of a report that says the annual subsidies to the ethanol industry of more than $100 million produce negligible economic, environmental or consumer benefits and erode energy security.
    Mr Honan said he would issue a more considered response in coming days but slammed the report, by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics as “absolute rubbish’’.
    The report, commissioned by the Industry department when Labor was in government, is being used internally in the Coalition to fuel arguments to scrap the subsidy scheme introduced in 2002 by the Howard government…
    The BREE report examines the $108 million paid to the nation’s three ethanol producers in 2012-13 when they produced 284 million litres.
    It concludes that despite the subsidy being designed to grow the industry, the use of ethanol in fuel has stagnated, the industry would be unviable without the subsidy, and that it is unlikely to expand further without additional government intervention or subsidy.
    It finds the 398,000 tonnes of carbon pollution abated in 2012-13 annually by the use of ethanol-blended fuel cost ­taxpayers $274 per tonne, more than 10 time the current fixed carbon price.
    The report estimates the three ethanol producers employ between 160 and 200 people between them, costing taxpayers between $545,000 and $680,000 per job…
    “Allowing for the possibility of creating as many again indirect jobs, this would equate to between $272,500 and $340,625 per job.”
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/manildra_boss_says_ethanol_report_AHGWc2blRBoQP4N0Hc6jNK

    5 Feb: Helsinki Times, Finland: Fate of biofuels mired in doubt
    “Food substances should be used as nourishment rather than fuel,” Richard Moore stated while filling up his car in Meilahti, Helsinki, on Monday.
    The obligation to distribute biofuels will expire in 2020, and thereon the fate of biofuels is mired in doubt. A fortnight ago, the European Commission proposed as part of its energy and climate goals that after 2020 the binding renewable energy obligation be abandoned, similarly to country-specific quotas…
    The largest producer, Neste Oil, has expressed its hope that the European Union will introduce a binding renewable energy goal, citing investor certainty…
    Stefan Sundman, the director of corporate relations and development at UPM, reminded that the biofuel market has been created by policy-makers. “We invested in biodiesel believing that the market exists. The demand for renewable fuels has been created by policy-makers,” he stated…
    http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/9216-fate-of-biofuels-mired-in-doubt.html

    7 Feb: Bloomberg: Ethanol Evangelist Shrugs Off Volatility to Build Powerhouse
    By John Lippert and Mario Parker
    Becker, chief executive officer of Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc., says he didn’t want to wait for a bank loan, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its March issue. Instead, he ordered deputies to wire a third of the company’s cash — $108 million — and buy two ethanol plants, in Nebraska and Minnesota, from creditors of Denver-based BioFuel Energy Corp. He says he worried that if he didn’t jump, rival Valero Energy Corp. in San Antonio would snatch the properties, robbing him of a chance to expand annual production by almost a third to 1 billion gallons…
    (Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Washington-based Environmental Working Group): “Ethanol is bad news for anyone who eats, drives a car or cares about the environment,” Faber says.
    Becker isn’t deterred…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-07/ethanol-evangelist-shrugs-off-volatility-to-build-powerhouse.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      The Griss

      My thoughts on ethanol is that it should only be made from otherwise waste material (except grapes and yeast etc :-)

      It really is stupid to be growing crops especially for ethanol production when so many of the world struggles to get a square meal.

      Again the green agenda stuffs it up for the world’s poor, as always seems to be the way.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    pat

    the url for the Ezra Levant/Sun News/ Suzuki piece which doesn’t seem to have gone through:

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/02/20140209-074950.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    From the table ranking various general concerns, climate change still ranks pretty high. Given that people will worry most about the things they think will hurt them the most it looks like we still have a lot of work to do.

    BB


    Report this

    02

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, I am not only a sceptic about the global warming scam, I am also a sceptic about the ability of humans to “Murder” sharks. Has the CEO of the Macquarie Dictionary been “adjusting” the meaning of words again, as she did with “Misogynist”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    At the risk of drawing ire of the locals … where in the ABC Charter does it say anything about balanced reporting? I had a look at some ABC material the other day (including the Act they operate under) and couldn’t find anything that prohibitted them from giving slanted broadcasting. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 can be found here:

    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00136/Html/Text

    Do a word serach on “balance” and there are only two references (the second is a time-related reference… balance of the term…) the other is:

    the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs;

    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but it stands to reason that the ABC should be unbiased in its presentations, but it clearly is not. There is nothing obvious about being unbiased in “The Charter of teh Corporation” which is section 6 of the Act.

    Any thoughts?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Bulldust

      Perhaps in defense of the balance argument, The Charter does state (in the Act) in section 6(1)(b)(i):

      encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

      Given the stats on skeptics in the Australian community it is clear that the ABC is not representing that view proportionally in its media products. It could therefore be stated that they are not accurately reflecting Australian attitudes on this topic.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Bulldust

        Got to laugh. I went home for lunch, switched on the ABC because there isn’t much news on that time of day and I got this story:

        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/10/3941061.htm

        Yes, trade winds are causing the pause… don’t worry, global warming will be back with a vengeance after the pause…


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          As the old BBC Television used to say, when they had a technical glitch. “Normal Service Will Be Resumed As Soon As Possible”.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          ianl8888

          This is such a very silly report :)

          Sooner or later an El Nino oscillation will front up. AGW advocates will then say: “See ! We told you so !”

          That there is hard geological evidence (drillhole logs) of Nino/Nina oscillations for over 11,000 years now will be declared irrelevant, as will the Coriolis effect (those blo…y trade winds done it)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Yeah I listened to that article, a few things left me scratching my head and giggling.

          1. An admission there is a warming pause from a so called “prominent climate scientist” that was gold for a start.

          2. There was a mistake in the models. NO $HIT Sherlock? and that is no doubt just one of the errors you are prepared to share with us because its no longer feasible to conceal it.

          3. Winds are causing cold water to be drawn up from the deep oceans? Ok I can kind of see how that might be the case, but surely this is a phenomena that would have been well known before now. If local surface turbidity in a part of the ocean was capable of creating a cycle effect in the water on a grand scale, you would think that would be a fundamental principle of ocean dynamics like the Gulf Stream effect. So if they didn’t have something so basic in the models, what else is missing?

          4. When questioned about other theories (even those of other AGW believers) the speaker dismissed off hand other theories about why the climate has stopped warming and offered that his theory was the only correct one and that if it wasn’t for AGW effects, the planet would likely be a lot cooler right now as it is in a general cooling cycle apparently. Fascinating….

          Also later on the show someone rang in and asked whether undersea volcanoes, lava flows and vents were accounted for in ocean temperature cause and effect calculations. A physicist on the show dismissed the notion out of hand. He offered that any effect would be so minimal as to be insignificant and that it was definitely a benign molecule in the air above the oceans surface, with no ability of its own to generate heat causing ocean warming and not massive outflows of molten rock and super heated gasses contributing. He also added that a group of eminent scientists had discussed ocean warming recently in Hobart and if those effects had any credibility, then that group would be on to it, but that in fact he wasn’t sure if it was accounted for or not. I guess that’s what we call peer review these days.

          All in all the show was about 2 degrees C° from listening to the ramblings of someone with heat stroke, it was nonsensical basically.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          The Griss

          I blow on my coffee to cool it down. :-)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            But it would also cool if you didn’t blow on it. Also isn’t your blowing only cooling the little bit you then sip?

            Don’t get me wrong, I actually think the principle of wind drawing up water from depth is probably sound. Its just so basic its hard to believe they hadn’t thought to include it in the models.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Bulldust,

      This argument seems too obvious to require it to be stated but if nothing else, common decency dictates being honest and honesty dictates delivering all sides of the issue without editorial comment unless it’s specifically stated to be editorial.

      So again, what’s wrong with the ABC? They appear to be outright liars among other things.

      This is a violation of the basic code by which civilized societies have said they live for a long time. I don’t know for sure who to point the finger at but certainly the ABC’s audience ought to be alert enough to look for and study other opinions. If they did the ABC wouldn’t get away with such nonsense for very long.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    i love clear writing. Simple to understand and devastating in all the points it makes.

    Eugene WR Gallun


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    I wouldn’t know how to answer the question on environmental groups. I am a very active member of a local environmental group which spends most of its time trying to protect the environment from industrialisation by wind turbines and solar farms.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      I am a very active member of a local environmental group which spends most of its time trying to protect the environment from industrialisation by wind turbines and solar farms.

      Keep up the good work. Please don’t take this literally but off with their heads I say! more along the lines of cut off the financial incentives they rely on.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T, Tony Abbott has those rent seekers from the Solar Industry in a tizzy.

    Prime Minister Tony Abbott is making solar advocates (like me!) both nervous and angry.

    His recent “signals” leave little doubt that, after years of progress, the Abbott government may be the first administration to slash Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET).

    Abbott believes Australia should be an “affordable energy superpower”.

    But traditional fossil fuel generators like Origin Energy and AGL are finding it harder and harder to stay “affordable” these days.

    Thank, Gaia, we have Tony from Oz. P.S. The (like me!) referred to in the block quote above does not refer to me, myself or my shadow. :-)


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Also from the same article,

      The truth, as most Australian (and German and Chinese) citizens know, is that the days of affordable fossil fuel energy is over and slashing the RET isn’t going to bring them back.

      I looked for a comments link to point out that China is still opening a new coal fired power station every week and Germany is rushing to build new coal powered plants because the rush to green energy has back fired. All I can find is an offer to have three quotes for solar installation.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Milne rules the media again with her childish talk:

    10 Feb: Ninemsn: Carbon tax debate to drag on in Senate
    The fight to scrap the carbon tax could drag out for months in the Senate, with Labor and the Australian Greens indicating they won’t change their stance any time soon.
    The package of carbon tax bills will be the first item of business for the upper house on Tuesday but despite the federal government’s wish, no speedy resolution is likely…
    “In the meantime, we will be doing everything to stop Tony Abbott getting his own way,” Greens leader Christine Milne told reporters in Canberra on Monday.
    “We will vote against what Tony Abbott is trying to do.”…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/02/10/15/29/carbon-tax-debate-to-drag-on-in-senate


    Report this

    00

    • #

      “In the meantime, we will be doing everything to stop Tony Abbott getting his own way,” Greens leader Christine Milne told reporters in Canberra on Monday.
      “We will vote against what Tony Abbott is trying to do.”…

      Christine Milne has the power, she says.

      Well, how easy is this then>

      She and her Labor mates can have the courage of their convictions with respect to those CO2 emissions they so detest, and they never cease telling us that have the numbers to do it.

      They can just legislate to shut down those coal fired power plants. That would solve the problem immediately.

      How easy would that be.

      C’mon Christine! I dare you. Show us you have a pair.

      Tony.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        bobl

        Sorry Tony, she aint got the Reps any more, best she can do is be Dr No just like she accused TA of being six months ago… Oh how the worm turns.

        Meantime, for our international viewers, Christine, leader of the greens, in doing this is handing over about $6Bn in carbon tax revenue that TA can put toward paying off the debt, and thereby get elected next time. While all our fearless leader needs to do is go back to the senate on the first of July when our new senators take their seats and poor old Christine loses her balance of power. True idiocy only comes wrapped in green.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Angry

      If these communist greens/alp refuse to respect the will of the Australian people in abolishing the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax then ….

      BRING ON A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION ELECTION !!

      They will be utterly destroyed forever !!!


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    extremely interesting:

    3 Feb: EU Referendum: Richard North: EU policy: deliberately flooding the Somerset Levels
    At the time, Charles Clover, writing in the Telegraph, was very far from being impressed. He complained that, while Defra calls it “Making Space for Water”, others called it “flooding”. And, in those few words, the future government policy was revealed. Flood defence was to give way to “management”. In EU terms, that meant more flooding…
    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84683


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Txomin

    To be fair, 65% of any population can think the moon is made of cheese and, well, there you have it. Don’t forget that, for example, it is commonly believed that humans thought the earth was flat until the end of the 15th century, something that is patently false to anyone with an interest in history.


    Report this

    12

    • #
      Dave

      Txomin,

      Cute

      “humans thought the earth was flat until the end of the 15th century”

      It was about 1,700 years earlier in 236BC That the circumference on the earth was estimated by a Greek guy called Eratosthenes in Egypt.

      Are you talking about a POLL in the 15th Century for who believed the world was flat? Reference please.

      Cheese, Jeese you’re funny.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        RoHa

        Dave, read what Txomin said.

        He said that anyone with an interest in history knows that it is not the case that the flat-earth was held until the 15th century.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Judy Ryan

    Well saId Jo,

    The link to the CSIRO survey doesn’t work, but it’s probably because they’ve taken it down.

    Does the link work for others?

    Can you let me know please. Maybe it’s my computer.

    Judy

    Judy, I think I have fixed the link. If not there is a link at the bottom to all teh surveys that works, but note the CSIRO calls it the 2013 survey on that page. – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    The Australian results mirror those of other countries. But I disagree with your assessment of “not serving 50%” of the population (snarkily, I would say it is not serving any of the population). If the MSM, which is overwhelmingly pushing the issue of AGW, was unbiased in its reporting, I doubt the percentage believing man was a primary factor in global warming would fall significantly.

    Like it or not, most people are just not interested (as evidenced by its rank of 14th of 16 issues), and so they merely parrot what they have heard, without understanding anything about it. So it inflates the numbers that believe as the MSM does.

    You can lie to people for just so long. And you can fudge data for just so long. But this has been going on for 25 years now, and the net effect is not much has really changed (other than the amount of CO2) in global climate. People notice that. That is why with a full bore push by the MSM they cannot even get to 50%. Without that push, the percentage would be far less, and it would not even appear on the list of 16 issues to be concerned about.

    The only thing man made is the hysteria.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Andrew P

    I used to give hundreds of dollars a year to Greenpeace, supported the Greens, tried to limit my carbon footprint, even went on one or two protests. Then I met a guy doing a phD in environment science, who was quite skeptical about global warming. I started to look at these issues a little more critically.
    Then on the ABC, ironically, a commentator mentioned a website that gave both sides of the global warming debate. That was probably the beginning of my doubts, that there might be another side to this.
    When the climategate emails came out I read through them, and my by now damaged belief in climate change turned gradually into anger that we were (in my opinion) being deceived by these scientists – as far as I could understand what seemed to be going on, they were willfully misrepresenting the evidence and manipulating the peer review process, while living off the global warming junket – and when I realised these were the top scientists, advisers of the IPCC, my anger turned to outrage.
    In the survey above I would have answered yes to those questions – have you given money, etc – but I am certainly not an anthropogenic global warming believer any more.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      I was suspicious from the mid 80s. A long bow seemed to have been drawn but I was only a school kid so I couldn’t call it scepticism. It wasn’t until the Climategate emails that I put in the effort to check the science and became outraged even though I was always suspicious of the need for “scientists” to play the man.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Back in the States I read all auto manufacturers are pulling out of Australia by 2016. Is this due to electricity prices being high by adopting a carbon tax? Electricity rates for manufacturing in the U.
    S. are around 6 cents(US) per kilowatt-hour. Maybe Australia could lower energy rates for manufacturers and keep them back in the country. Correct me if I am wrong on these remarks.

    James H. Rust
    jrust@bellsouth.net


    Report this

    00

  • #
    monswer shark

    So I take it none of you believe in the precautionary principle? This issue and this survey is just another green socialist left latte sipping tree hugging abc leftist plot no doubt, just like house insurance, medicare ,superannuation and vaccinations.
    looking at the differing interpretations between MS Nova and the Conversation regarding this survey just shows how commentators can make any case they want over a set of survey results if they are biased enough…….


    Report this

    02

    • #

      You post no actual argument.

      The precautionary principle is no law of science, it applies as much to skeptics as to believers. We suggest precaution before making radical economic changes and ask for observational evidence to support the amount of warming claimed. Believers can’t name evidence that supports the assumptions or the conclusions.

      The survey is badly designed, but still supports skeptics.

      There is no need to bring in irrelevant topics. They won’t help sort out the climate mess.

      Please raise your standards before you comment again.


      Report this

      10