JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

46% of 70,000 Australians say they don’t believe humans cause global warming

Ninemsn (major network news in Australia) held a small poll on it’s home page on Friday, asking Do you believe global warming is man-made?

The ratio stayed roughly the same from start to finish. (Here, early on, it was 44% skeptical).

Matty  in Perth kept track of the tally, and while the poll seems to have disappeared off the home page (can anyone find an archive?) at last count it was 39,899 yes and 33,960 no which was 46% skeptic of a total of 73,859 votes.

Of course, these are unrepresentative, self selecting polls. It underestimates the number of skeptics. The latest CSIRO survey shows 53% of the Australian population don’t agree that “humans are causing climate change”. Nonetheless, we trust Nine news notices the large response of its own audience. There will be some major ratings wins out there for whichever commercial news service notices that almost everything they broadcast on climate change is a bore and a turn-off for half their audience.

And as far as the ABC goes, as I’ve said before, when it gives 50% of its climate budget and time to skeptical arguments we will know it is fulfilling its charter.

Image thanks to the Galileo Movement on Facebook. (Hop over and buy a T-Shirt)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (80 votes cast)
46% of 70,000 Australians say they don't believe humans cause global warming, 8.8 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lxbdx4p

117 comments to 46% of 70,000 Australians say they don’t believe humans cause global warming

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    Strange how these questions always are a bit mixed, even that this is not the worst, and there might not be any agenda behind, except there own believe.
    As there has been no warming the past 15 to 20 years, how to answer the question?
    Does a yes mean that man has stopped the warming. And what could a no mean?
    It is like asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife. In most cases you can not answer with just yes or no.

    241

    • #
      Jaymez

      Another major problem is that such questions rarely allow for answers at the margin. This is a straight yes or no answer. But I believe many of the public are better educated and know that ‘some’ global warming could be attributed to human greenhouse emissions.

      With this survey question I could have answered ‘Yes’, because I believe there is some warming potential given I don’t know whether there are natural feedback mechanisms which totally counteract the relatively small amount of warming the additional green house gases can cause.

      Or I could have answered ‘NO’ because I know from experience that the hidden meaning of the question is do I think humans are the MAIN contributor to global warming.

      Then even if you thought all of the approximate 1.0C warming over the last century was human induced, the question assumes that if you agree, you also believe that such warming is bad and not overall beneficial. Even though many alarmist scientists admit that warming of up to 2.0C would have a net benefit for humans and the globe.

      In other-words, after all these years of information and debate, main stream media has not moved beyond their basic polarising, ideological position that global warming is man made and bad! Forgetting entirely about past climate optimums and why they were called that. Understanding nothing about negative and positive feedback mechanisms from increasing atmospheric CO2, not to mention the myriad possible natural warming causes.

      351

    • #
      Dennis

      Note the CSIRO note, surely not there to influence people.

      171

      • #

        The CSIRO note appeared after people had answered so at least it didn’t influence the answers. However it pretty clearly shows what Nine MSN thinks is the “right” answer. Presumably they slant all their stories accordingly, and hence it’s remarkable that their readership is still 45% skeptical.

        192

        • #
          warcroft

          I like how ‘No’ is in red so it looks like the wrong answer.

          122

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          “And as far as the ABC goes, as I’ve said before, when it gives 50% of its climate budget and time to skeptical arguments we will know it is fulfilling its charter.”

          So the ABC should also give equal time to the anti-vaccination lobby, the HIV does not cause AIDS viewpoint, and other fringe scientific opinions?

          Because whether you like it or not, that is what the “skeptic” position is.

          By all means trumpet it on your website along with Mr Bolt Anthony Watts and others, but do not demand that mainstream media and science organisations promote your fringe opinion.

          Climate scientists overwhelmingly have come to the conclusion that the evidence supports that human activities which have increased carbon dioxide concentrations by 40% since the industrial revolution are warming the earth. The media correctly reports this.

          The “skeptic” position gets more than its fair share of publicity due to the activities of idealogically driven free market think tanks and fossil fuel industry.

          You mention the Galileo movement.

          I once sent them an email and received a pro forma response which declared their mission to be the maintenance of free market and anti regulation principles.

          21

          • #

            Philip, The ABC demand my taxes, ergo, I expect that they fulfil their charter.

            I would never demand they cover “fringe” science — they just need to start reporting rational logical arguments and stop spouting propaganda. I’m not sure the ABC science unit knows what science is, they keep mistaking it for something based on a religious faith that calls people names, and tosses derision instead of reason.

            And sorry to be the one to tell you, but vaccination and HIV are different scientific topics to the climate. It’s a bit “fringe” to suggest they have any effect.

            Nevermind. I’m sure you will get the hang of science if you keep trying.

            11

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Ms Nova, the problem with supporters of fringe scientific opinion is that they think their particular fringe opinion is a special case.

              Yes vaccination and HIV are different topics, as is “intelligent design”, but if your particular fringe scientific opinion is to be afforded equal time, why is not everyone else’s?

              Ms Nova, I changed my position on AGW when I considered that the weight of evidence supported it. Ironically it has firmed as a result of visiting “skeptic” blogs including way back when Mr Bolt answered comments individually. I examined the skeptic arguments, and looked at counterarguments decided that the AGW proponents had the better of it.

              If you want to talk about calling people names, you have done so yourself by on previous occasions as referring to my acceptance of AGW as “your religion.”

              You further demonstrate this tactic by this remark:

              “Nevermind. I’m sure you will get the hang of science if you keep trying.”

              Ms Nova, I will stack my academic qualifications, scientific publication record, research grants and patents held up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

              21

              • #

                Phillip – More bad news for you. Your “fringe” is 62% of UK citizens, 52% of Australians…

                Still can’t find any actual evidence to support the water vapor assumption eh?

                21

              • #
                Mark D.

                Shehan:

                Ms Nova, I will stack my academic qualifications, scientific publication record, research grants and patents held up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

                Nova:

                Still can’t find any actual evidence to support the water vapor assumption eh?

                The difference between argument from authority and science.

                Patent that Philip…….

                11

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Mark D,

                It was Ms Nova who made the ad hominem attack rather than stick to the science:

                “Nevermind. I’m sure you will get the hang of science if you keep trying.”

                [Since you posted logical fallacies - Argument from Authority, and irrelevant topics like AIDS, my comment was an accurate assessment of your scientific method. ie, you have't learnt how to reason yet - Jo]

                My reply to this piece of condescension was entirely entirely appropriate and accurate. Am I supposed to retire, bowing and scraping and begging pardons in the face of this kind of rubbish?

                And what pray tell, has accusing people who examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that AGW stacks up of following a “religion” got to do with anything remotely resembling scientific arguments?

                Ms Nova is not above relying on the “authority” of public opinion polls, while dismissing the opinions of people most able to understand and evaluate the evidence for and against AGW. Every major scientific organisation on the face of the earth has made it clear that the scientific evidence for AGW is solid. That is what makes the “skeptic” viewpoint “fringe science”.

                [Shehan claims we are "Fringe" despite the opinion polls. He seems to be confused about what data is. When discussing beliefs of groups, what other data is there than opinion polls? - Jo]

                And how is plucking this statement out of thin air “science”?

                “Still can’t find any actual evidence to support the water vapor assumption eh?”

                Please explain.

                [I've asked this question maybe 300 times on this blog in posts and comments. You've been reading for 2 years and act like it came out of the blue? - Jo]

                10

              • #

                Philip Shehan,

                You could, umm, just give us all up as a (your perception) lost cause and go somewhere else.

                Then you wouldn’t be so offended, eh!

                Tony.

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thank you for the advice Tony, but as I have pointed out elsewhere

                http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/scientists-invent-time-travelling-models-that-might-have-worked/#comment-1562850

                I am quite capable of defending myself in blogs and in the courts and pubs from attacks by others.

                I have noticed however that “skeptics” such as yourself are uncomfortable with the presence of people who interupt them in their mutual affirmation sessions of their insights and intelligence and how correct they all are, and request that such people go elsewhere so they can get on with offering their opinions free from fear of contradiction.

                10

              • #

                Oh Philip Shehan, there you go again, telling us how we feel. Now how would you know that?

                I have noticed however that “skeptics” such as yourself are uncomfortable with the presence of people who interupt them in their mutual affirmation sessions of their insights and intelligence and how correct they all are…..

                Me! Uncomfortable because of you. You have to be kidding.

                As much as you think that you have some expertise in what you keep telling us, then surely you must concede that I have my own subject field where I know more than you.

                I notice you never comment on any of the data I present here, so I guess you must be the one who is uncomfortable outside of your own perceived field of expertise, but hey, I understand that. That ground makes you feel uncomfortable when unsure of the comments you might make.

                After all, as you have said before here, what I offer is only just a strawman argument in your opinion.

                I also notice that when presented with what would be the inevitable outcome of what you call for, say, at this link, you all look the other way, and assiduously avoid commenting there, while flooding other Threads with meaningless pedantry.

                But I guess you’re the one who is uncomfortable when information like that is presented to you, eh!

                So go ahead, sue me, as you alluded to, the subliminal threat of last resort your side uses when things get tough for you. I’m only a pensioner with a tiny Air Force Superannuation payment every fortnight, so how could my life get any more difficult.

                Tony.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “Me! Uncomfortable because of you. You have to be kidding.”

                That’s his insufferable self-importance speaking yet again ! :-)

                He desperately wants some relevance back in his life and is so brian-wounded he thinks this is how to get it.. quite sad really :-)

                11

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                And yet Tony, you presume to know how offended I am, and that I consider everyone on this blog a lost cause.

                So I don’t respond to your every post.

                You have also accused me of dominating the blog when I attempt to answer those I consider the most important.

                There does not seem much chance of me submitting at what you deem an acceptable rate, unless that rate is zero.

                Well, you have not answered all of my posts, but I do not demand that you do or admit you have thrown in the towel.

                As for the link you put up, I don’t recall having seen it, let alone commenting in it.

                You see, unlike G who has is potty under a hole in his chair, never leaving the keyboard, while accusing me of having nothing else in life, I only join in a limited number of discussions here.

                11

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                I might add Tony that your area of expertise as exemplified by your link is in engineering.

                That is a secondary issue with regard to my area of expertise and interest, science, and specifically here, the science of climate change.

                As I wrote elsewhere, the politics, economics and risk assessment associated with the consequences of climate change is irrelevant to scientific understanding of the extent and consequences for the natural world of AGW.

                That would go a long way to explaining why I do not comment on many of your posts.

                You may be entirely correct about the costs etc. of various non fossil fuel electricity generation.

                That has nothing to do with the science of climate change itself.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                “regard to my area of expertise interest, science, and specifically here, the science of climate change “

                roflmao…. truly hilarious. ! :-)

                02

              • #

                You just gotta love this attitude from Dr. Phil, eh!

                In his eyes, the all important Science is the absolute pinnacle.

                The engineering which is required to address that Science is, as Philip himself says, insignificant, irrelevant, a strawman, and not even worth addressing, in fact, just totally ignoring it.

                Now that really does take the cake for a superiority pedestal.

                For six and a half years now, all I have done is to find ways to address that engineering …. IF (and that’s a pretty huge if) we are to believe in the first place the Science you guys throw at us as being the religious truth.

                Tony.

                Post Script – I’d probably add that you’re a [snip] really nice guy, but I can’t afford the legal fees.

                00

              • #

                You just gotta love this attitude from Dr. Phil, eh!

                In his eyes, the all important Science is the absolute pinnacle.

                The engineering which is required to address that Science is, as Philip himself says, insignificant, irrelevant, a strawman, and not even worth addressing, in fact, just totally ignoring it.

                Now that really does take the cake for a superiority pedestal.

                For six and a half years now, all I have done is to find ways to address that engineering …. IF (and that’s a pretty huge if) we are to believe in the first place the Science you guys throw at us as being the religious truth.

                Tony.

                Post Script – I’d probably add that you’re a (don’t go there Tony) really nice guy, but I can’t afford the legal fees.

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                And him trying to pass himself off as having expertise in science (except a tiny nitch) or ANY expertise in climate science is highly amusing. :-)

                He must have forgotten the /sarc tag !!

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                “The engineering which is required to address that Science is, as Philip himself says, insignificant, irrelevant, a strawman, and not even worth addressing, in fact, just totally ignoring it.’

                A complete misrepresentation of my position Tony.

                Whatever your area of expertise, it is certainly not English comprehension.

                “For six and a half years now, all I have done is to find ways to address that engineering…”

                Engineering being your chosen superior pedestal than.

                Which confirms what I wrote earlier.

                Your interest is confined to engineering solutions. I may even agree with your solutions, but do not comment as I am primarily interested at least in this forum) in the science.

                “If …we are to believe in the first place the Science you guys throw at us as being the religious truth.”

                Woops. There we go with the religion thing again.

                00

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Extra extra …read all about it….Globalist agenda continues to march forward. As we can see , a deal will keep the RET insanity alive, and Clive ( the latest pro-CAGW implementation tool ) is going to do as instructed.

      AS I said a while back, Clive is a side whow to maintain the appearance of democracy, while bringing in the pro-AGW agenda.

      http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/government-might-give-ground-on-renewable-energy-target-20140906-10dbvp.html

      “Confidence is growing that a workable deal could be salvaged on Australia’s renewable energy target with suggestions the Abbott government will give ground amid a backlash from industry and backbench MPs.”
      ……
      Members of the renewables industry and some political figures have begun quietly floating alternatives that might break the impasse.

      “One was keeping the fixed target of having 41,000 gigawatt hours of electricity produced from large-scale renewable energy projects that is part of the scheme, but pushing back the date to achieve it from 2020 to 2022.”

      And so ladies and gents there wqe have it – a pro-CAGW agenda in play, ragrdless who is in power, both sides of parliament ( and the house-trained PUP ) will guarantee the agenda moves forward, using an articial Helegian Dialectic “struggle”.

      101

    • #
      Brute

      Folks are being asked what they believe, not what they know. And what they believe makes no difference whatsoever to what things are (or are not).

      But it is surprising how many DON’T BELIEVE something there are persistently told they MUST believe.

      101

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Given that for the last 12 months Australia’s AGW propaganda machine has done its best to provide blanket media coverage in Australia especially as the evidence mounted against them, 46% is not a bad number.

        However it reminds us that despite the ever mounting evidence against the scam, the battle isn’t won yet.

        60

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    It’s no good constantly railing against “consensual science” then trumpeting the numbers of a self-selecting poll when the figures support your corner. The belief of civil society has no bearing on the truth of the matter. The poll asks for a statement of “belief”. Shouldn’t sceptics be concluding from the evidence available, rather than aping the ecoloons by believing in an evidence-free hypothesis?

    Hear endeth the rant.

    281

    • #
      michael hammer

      Your point is valid but as I understand it the reason for rasing the issue is not to claim skeptis are right but rather to point out that there are enough people on the negative side to warrant a more balanced debate in the media. That at least in the public’s eyes the debate is not settled. One could also ask the question, why did ninemsn setup the poll in the first place?

      231

      • #
        ianl8888


        why did ninemsn setup the poll in the first place?

        More to the point, will ninesm actually report the results, and if so, how ?

        While I appreciate TonyOz’s comments (and mining geologists/engineers/power engineers have been through all that ad nauseum in attempting to quantify mine costs vs sales prices), the lack of engineering information in the meeja is absolutely deafening – no MSM outlet will publish it. Perhaps because the journos/editors are scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate, perhaps because they are fearful of the backlash if this information is widely disseminated, but more likely for both reasons combined

        It is so much easier to claim “consensus”. No more effort is then required. Murdoch once opined that there is no requirement for the meeja to educate the public. Well, he’s right, so it doesn’t

        151

        • #

          ianl8888 says here:

          …..the lack of engineering information in the meeja is absolutely deafening – no MSM outlet will publish it. Perhaps because the journos/editors are scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate, perhaps because they are fearful of the backlash if this information is widely disseminated, but more likely for both reasons combined

          When I started out in early 2008, the perceived problem I had was that the information would be seen as dry and boring, and that was why I thought my original series would tap out after half a dozen Posts or so, because I thought that no one would want to read that stuff.

          My home Blog where I was just starting out had a fairly wide readership, and the site owner, while still feeling me out as a contributor would just take my Posts by email, and he would do all the work posting them at the site.

          After half a dozen or so Posts at the rate of one every second day, he was getting feedback from his readers that they wanted more of it because it really was interesting, mainly because no one was getting any of this from anywhere else. He asked if I could stretch it out, which wasn’t a problem, as the more I looked, the more there was to tell about it all.

          From then on, it just snowballed. What surprised me the most was that people really did want to know about this stuff, and that (somehow) I had stumbled upon a way to make it relatively easy to understand.

          Therein lies the probable seat of your question and a possible answer.

          Because the media is made up of people who understand ….. the media, they have a perception that the reading public are basically idiots, and anything of that nature would just be wasted space in a newspaper, media outlet, etc, as people just would not read it.

          What I have found, not only here, but everywhere I do write something, is that people really DO want to know about all this.

          I dread the day when the real truth about renewables comes out, and people will just look around with blank looks on their faces, bewildered, wondering why no one told them these things.

          That’s why I keep saying ….. “Just turn those coal fired plants off.” Only then will people see where they have been failed so comprehensively. It’ll only take a day or so for the truth to come out. Everybody knows however, that that will never be allowed to happen, because of the resultant chaos it would lead to.

          The fall back for renewables, and the thing they rely on most, is that there will ALWAYS be electricity coming out of the hole in the wall, so people’s perception is that electricity is just electricity, no matter where it comes from. If they are told that renewables are supplying that, then because it is always there, then people will just believe that renewables can in fact take up the slack if coal fired power is just turned off, something that renewables just patently cannot do.

          Media bosses and their editors think that the public would not read anything like that, so they just don’t even mention it, when I think that people really do want to know.

          Tony.

          261

          • #
            ianl8888

            Preaching to the converted, Tony

            In my experience, the point that tends to stop the unthinking in their tracks is when one points out the issue of ATM’s, bank computers, cash registers, credit card functions, petrol pumps, water pumps, supermarket refrigeration etc not working from the 1st nanosecond of base load failure

            But I fear most of the populace do not want to know this stuff. Why ? Try asking a random selection of people in any shopping mall. They may be polite but they really don’t want to know – too scary for them, I suspect

            We’re watching with interest the current UK experiment with the reliability of its’ base load this winter. It could well provide a ghastly “tipping point” :)

            171

            • #
              the Griss

              Hopefully it will only take one cold climate country to experience base-load collapse, and the whole renewable NON-energy scam will come crashing down.

              Coal, gas, nuclear (and in the right terrain and climate, Hydro) are the ONLY alternative for solid reliable base load power.

              Solar and wind are nothing but massively expensive FAD TOYS !

              Coal and gas have the added bonus that they feed the planet’s atmosphere with much needed extra CO2 that got accidentally sequestered.

              183

              • #
                sophocles

                Solar and wind are nothing but massively expensive FAD TOYS !

                and that’s being generous. They’re useless.

                Nuclear is an ever improving option. There’s been some interesting research into MSN reactors from MIT, I think. MSN reactor = molten salt nuclear reactor, and we are not talking about Thorium here, but a reactor which can burn spent nuclear fuel (the stuff which has to be shipped to reprocessing plants, or buried or sequestered or stored in holding tanks etc) more or less completely. It’s a proposed modification to the Molten Salt proof of concept reactors pioneered by Oak Ridge in the 50′s and 70′s.

                If it all can be made to work, it will be a godsend: resulting in a massive cleanup of the present waste problem.

                As for baseload failure, you’re being optimistic: I’ve been informed (by non-engineers) it’s all just ‘a small matter of engineering.’ They allege that if the political will exists then the engineering will ‘just be solved.’ And as numbers increase, cost will come down. There is no comprehension at all about how a national grid functions.

                Quote of the year: ‘it’s sort of like a truck.’ Sheesh.

                Others claim ‘storage is all that’s needed.’ Sheesh, no concept at all of the amount of storage required to meet baseline demand. I think they mean batteries, otherwise they would know that coal seams, oil puddles, gas reservoirs and hydro lakes are exactly that.

                Idiots! The world seems to be populated by them …

                142

              • #
                Tel

                Molten salt is a great idea for getting heat out of a reactor core, but unfortunately it is also highly corrosive and difficult from a safety perspective.

                Then again, try the “Toshiba 4S Nuclear Battery” design which uses liquid sodium!

                Personally, the Canadian heavy-water design is by far the safest, if you are OK to spend the money. If India can afford them, I think we probably could.

                101

              • #
                the Griss

                But guys, nuclear is a silly option in Australia.

                We have heaps of high quality coal.

                That’s what we should be using…

                … and benefiting the world’s plant life in the process, by releasing that valuable CO2 from its sequestered burial.

                Coal, and gas are a win-win situation that is easy to do, and to do now in many parts of the developing world as well.

                There are bound to be substantial coal and gas deposits under most parts of Africa, where energy is desperately needed to drag the whole region out of the rather un-developed situation it is currently in.

                162

              • #

                Tel, finger on the pulse here.

                CANDU is in fact quite an attractive option here.

                Tony.

                61

              • #
                sophocles

                Tel:
                pipe rates of corrosion for various materials is an area tagged for more research. It’s going to be interesting to see what pops out.

                71

    • #
      Dave N

      Sadly, if the figures favour (or close to it) skepticism, they’ll tout: “Government and scientists aren’t getting through to people”; if it’s the reverse, it’ll be “see doubters? we told you!”.

      I expect they’d never admit that the public aren’t so dumb to be hoodwinked by alarmism; there’s at least few ounces of irony in that.

      50

  • #
    • #
      michael hammer

      Ahh, another claiming weather = climate only, of course, when it suits their argument!

      514

    • #
      The Backslider

      According to AGW theory, frost should be a thing of the past.

      131

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      You mention food prices.

      For most of the last 30 years small minority parties have held the balance of power in the Australian senate, and state upper houses also.

      These parties, mostly having a “Greens”, i.e. Marxist leaning, have been able to gain for Greens policy much more leverage than their electoral support justifies.

      There are substantial elements in the Greens movement who preach that because of Australia’s “fragile ecology” Australia should shut down agriculture altogether and import its food. And indeed, the carbon tax was designed to do just that.

      Nobody has noticed that the prices for major food commodities, i.e. the world prices, are set by heavy subsidisation in Europe in particular, and other countries around the world. Especially countries which have in living memory experienced severe famine. This includes mainland Europe.

      SO Australian consumers get their farm produce at the heavily corrupted (i.e. subsidised) prices, while making no contribution to the subsidies, because Australia’s farmers get very little subsidisation.

      Those calling for a shut down expect that they will be able to import food at these subsidised prices. However they will discover that without Australian competition foreign countries will charge Australia not the subsidised price, but the full cost of production price, plus a margin for profit, and even perhaps set prices on the basis of “what the market will bear”.

      Australia is in for a very rude shock with food pricing if this policy follows through. At the present time it is advancing rapidly.

      70

  • #

    These polls hardly ever ask the relevant policy-related questions. That is

    1. Do you believe than humans are having a non-trivial and adverse effect on climate?
    2. Given the current state of global politics, do you believe every Government in the developed World will promise to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% and ever developing country to stop future growth in their greenhouse gas emissions?
    3. Given the history of the last hundred years, do you believe that the vast majority of current leaders (at least including USA, Russia, China, India, EU and Japan) are capable of making promises that are binding on all future Governments until the end of the century?
    4. Do you believe that Governments of whatever political persuasion or country, are always entirely successful in all that they promise to do?

    If the answer is no to any of these, then no policy is justified. If any face-to-face pollster were to elicit a “yes” to all four questions, then they should be reprimanded for interrupting somebody who is communing with the fairies.

    291

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Many polls are designed to get the answer wanted by whoever commissioned the poll. This one may or may not be honest in it’s intent (as in show that a more balanced presentation in the media is warranted) and policy questions are among the most manipulated in order to get that desired result.

      If an argument for a balanced presentation is really wanted, how about the single word, honesty? Never mind polling. The warmists all know there’s another point of view and quite obviously they fear it. So just keep holding them to the fire of exposure.

      141

      • #

        Roy

        If an argument for a balanced presentation is really wanted, how about the single word, honesty?

        A prerequisite to honesty is pluralism. People will develop beliefs at odds with reality and/or nonsensical from their own beliefs if they are left to go unchallenged. People genuinely believe in the need to save the world form human-caused “climate change”. But their benchmark is the “truth” revealed by the climate models, and the evidence in support is that people who they respect as scientists agree with them.
        Most of the people who gave their opinion either way probably don’t know the first thing about global warming. Rather they evaluate the subject from who supports it or not. For many believers it is simply that large Government knows best / big business is evil that confirms their beliefs. Or even that they follow the party line.
        For many who reject global warming it could be simply they just don’t trust anything from people who claim they are always right, but are clearly shown to be wrong in other areas. Or from people who authority be making false accusations against opponents.

        81

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          But their benchmark is the “truth” revealed by the climate models, and the evidence in support is that people who they respect as scientists agree with them.

          Kevin,

          All very true, particularly the above sentence from your reply. But the antidote remains exposure to the other side’s point of view supported by actual evidence and sound argument. Some will be critical enough thinkers to figure it out and some never will. But holding them to the fire of exposure is the thing that will do the trick if anything will.

          As you probably guess, I don’t have much faith in polls and I suspect you don’t either.

          The problem of human behavior is a complex one at best. But we could do so much better than we have if we’d been teaching our children critical thinking and insisting on honesty all along instead of teaching dogma so much of the time.

          When I was in school in the 1940s and ’50s and went through the courses in U.S. history and government it was a one sided view. I had to find out the hard way what the other points of view about my country really are as I went through life and I regret not having had the opportunity to see that other side when I should have been exposed to it. It was a surprise in some cases that there even were people with a different point of view.

          I might not have sorted it all out reasonably then. But I would have had a much better chance of figuring it out a lot earlier in life. The opinions I have now might be the same or different. I don’t know because I don’t have a way to go back and do it over so I could have a benchmark for comparison. But it’s been a long journey that began with all the various groups with some grievance finally going public with their protests. That’s what Jo and others are doing with this blog and the many others that protest the dogma of those in power.

          101

          • #

            Roy,
            I entirely agree that the antidote is to consider alternative points of view. Part of my journey was studying economics in the early 1980s. The subject was in crisis at the time, as the Keynesian Consensus had broken down with both rising inflation and unemployment. Throughout the course, essay questions started with “Compare and contrast….”. What I found most useful was studying the history of economic thought, seeing who new ideas developed from the older, learning from past inadequacies, or sometimes repeating the same mistakes in new ways.

            Being challenged by opposing ideas is not a new phenomena. The Ancient Greeks set great store in the ability to debate. It was no accident that they produced some of the earliest philosophers. In Anglo Saxon England, the trial by jury system had at its heart the right of the accused to challenge the evidence. Wrongful convictions often occur when the process is undermined by prejudice. But the process can work to reinforce the prosecution’s case where the accused gives ridiculous excuses.

            I do agree that opinion polls are rubbish. In the courts it is the equivalent to “hearsay” evidence. However, in the 1980s I also read the stories of Soviet dissidents – Vladimir Bukovsky’s “To Build a Castle” being one of the best. People were bombarded by statistics and false information. Rather than believe the messages, most ordinary citizens would often interpret them differently. Sometimes correctly (Images of students volunteering to bring in the harvest = another bad harvest) or sometimes incorrectly (American Capitalist gangsters are better organised than the Soviet bureaucrats). This teaches me that opinion polls can show up unexpected results.
            This was reinforced earlier this year. Studying Stephan Lewandowsky’s two opinion surveys I found that the results essentially falsify his “conspiracist ideation” hypothesis, whilst in terms of political beliefs, it is the strong believers have the narrower range of beliefs. These left-environmentalist beliefs probably drive their belief in climate alarmism, rather than the revealed truth of the climate models making them realize that drastic action is necessary.

            70

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Kevin,

              I read your two links. I probably should pay more attention to your blog. But there are too many good ones and not enough time.

              I’m in continual debate with myself about what the right mix of free market and regulation is. I’ve nothing like a hard and fast position, though I favor no more regulation than it takes to keep the playing field level for everyone.

              Not so about climate change. I haven’t found a thing in all the time I’ve been studying it to convince me that CO2 can do anything we could even measure reliably. And I was laughing at the premise behind Lewandowsky’s polling because it was ridiculous at face value. People are more complex than that. Then there’s that poll with only 4 respondents.

              50

  • #
    TdeF

    What global warming?

    Through leading questions like this, people are continually being told the world is warming and that man is at fault.
    In fact what proportion of Australians believe even Australia is warming? What happened to that convenient drought?

    From place to place around the planet, the story of steady local warming is unlikely to be believed, often laughable. There was snow in Cairo last year, for the first time in 100 years.

    So who is propagating this story of world wide man made warming and why? Or do we know the answers?

    How are those cute and cuddly polar bears going?

    191

    • #
      Carbon500

      TdeF: ‘What global warming?’ – how true! Never in the history of science has so much BS been spread about such trivial temperature changes as those deemed dangerous by the climate doom-mongers.
      It entertains me hugely that we’re told that the ‘pre industrial’ (ie before the year 1750) CO2 value was 280ppm of CO2. Now it’s about 400ppm, an increase of almost 43% – yet the Central England Temperature Record (CET) gives a value of 9.56C for 1900 and the same for 2013.
      It’s never even reached 11 degrees C. Then there are the inconsequentially trivial changes in the temperature record for the now-famous last seventeen years or so, with fraction of a degree oscillations only to be seen.
      One thing is for sure – there’s money in them thar wind turbines and lots of government research grants for more BS ‘science’!

      131

    • #
  • #
    pattoh

    Gee I’d love it if they had a AGW Believers poll in SA around the power bill cycle time, especially if their wind farms enthusiasm ultimately lead to Brown or Blackouts.

    181

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ’46% of 70,000 Australians say they don’t believe humans cause global warming’ and 100% of biased turkeys voted against Christmas, but it still happened.

    231

    • #
      TdeF

      Christmas is cyclical.

      211

      • #
        Robert

        Yes but it is always good entertainment to watch as BA4 tries to be clever and fails.

        It’s even more entertaining to watch the complete failure of logic and critical thinking that makes up a BA4 comment.

        Quite often in testing new designs we make the assumption that “no one would be that stupid” when considering safeguards. Pretty much without fail after the product is released we find out there was someone who was “that stupid.” BA4 is the climate science version of one of our customers. You say to yourself “no one could be that gullible” yet there he is…

        50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Christmas = silly season ( tis the season to be …er…jolly….)

        Climate change = lack of reason ( tis the reason for extreme folly…)

        Do I see a comparison…I believe I do…..

        40

    • #
      James Bradley

      Sorry BA4,

      Turkey is the traditional Thanksgiving meal.

      You will find that the goose is the traditional Christmas meal.

      And given your track record, you would have been the only goose to support Christmas dinner…

      130

  • #
    scaper...

    Gee, if humans are capable of causing this global warming then we are not doing a very good job of it.

    I wonder what the count would be if the question was…”Do you want the Carbon Tax reinstated to prevent the warming?”

    171

  • #
    Pouncer

    When serious personal consequences and money at are stake, this sort of questioinaire tends to ask for comparisons of alternatives. Say choosing a college major or career.

    Do you prefer to work indoors or outdoors?

    Do you prefer to work with others or by yourself?

    Do you prefer to work indoors or with others?

    Do you prefer to have a steady, if smaller, income, or the chance at larger bonus or award payments at unpredictable intervals?

    Do you prefer to work alone or have a steady, if smaller, income?

    Do you prefer to work alone or in a noisy environment?

    Do you prefer to earn occasional bonuses or deal with small children?

    Etc etc.

    The pair-wise sequences eventually rank order preferences.

    Were pollsters to approach “the consensus” similarly and seriously, one might see questions of the form:

    Which is a bigger challenge –reducing carbon dioxide emissions or disposal of nuclear wastes?

    Do you think global warming is more dangerous in the short term than war in the middle east?

    Would you rather spend extra money to improve elementary schools or clean up electrical power stations?

    Is war in the middle east a bigger threat to our long term societal health or ineffective elementary schools?

    If we hired more government regulators should they inspect (a) banking and insurance fraud or (b) environmental waste disposal violations?

    Etc etc.

    Otherwise you get people like me who do in fact “believe” in global warming but are also entirely certain it’s like the 53rd most dangerous threat to my children and grandchildren behind, for instance: war, plague, famine … asteroid impact, runaway nanotech “grey goo”, Satanic cults, fluoridation of drinking water, poor quality control at vaccine production factories …

    I “believe” in global warming. I don’t “believe” it’s enough of a problem that any of my spare time, mental energy, or tax money should be spent to fix it until some other, bigger, more probable threats have had appropriate precautions fully implemented.

    103

  • #
    Matty

    Yes the only Global warming in the last 17 years has been the Mann made variety.

    141

  • #
    bemused

    Climate polls are inevitably jumped on by the believers and effectively loaded from the start (though they must have missed this one given the close call). They also never appear to ask whether respondents believe that we are headed for catastrophic climate change. Or whether they believe that climate change has been hyped up to more than what it really represents. Mind you, the latter questions wouldn’t really matter, given my first sentence.

    131

  • #
    Robert O

    The poll is too simplistic to come up with anything useful; you either have to vote yes or no and there wasn’t a no opinion box. As well how about sorting the ages of the respondents? I would guarantee there would be a different result between those less than 40 years old, and those more than 40 who have experienced heat waves, floods(e.g. Maitland) droughts, fires and bitter cold, the usual effects of the weather systems from time to time.

    160

  • #
    the Griss

    It is obvious that man affects local temperatures, and that these changes feed into the calculation of the average global temperature.

    It is also very obvious that certain people have been “gaming” the calculation of that average global temperature, particularly on the pre-1979 basis.

    But CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    If the question is referring to man influencing the global average temperature via CO2 emissions, then the answer is NO, in big fat capital letters. (I made the assumption that this is what the question was about)

    If the question is whether man is affecting the calculated average global temperature, then definitely, yes, in several ways.

    171

  • #
    Dennis

    On line polls are extremely unreliable and almost always reflect politics. On the same day at ABC The Drum the anti-Coalition vote against a poll question will most often be the opposite to a similar question at another website.

    I have also noted that polls can be heading in a certain direction and within hours change to reflect an opposite view.

    In other words political activists can and do manipulate on line polls.

    100

  • #
    Joe

    These self serve polls are probably more about sounding out the communications channels to develop ‘message strategies’ than getting any real meaningful numbers – basically testing out how fast any particular messages can spread via social media etc. Gives the message makers some idea of which buttons to press to manipulate the real numbers via the media or what can generate click revenue for somebody. Nobody seems really interested in surveying WHY people believe what they believe. I think it is fair to say 97.333% of the populace just ‘blindly’ form beliefs because some favoured person or organisation favours that point of view and has nothing to do with any reasoning power or scientific understanding. It is pretty much like supporting a football team.

    41

    • #
      TdeF

      It is also about pushing the message. No one person knows that the world is warming, so by asking whether man is responsible, the idea is implanted that it is warming, when it is not.

      111

  • #
    handjive

    August 29, 2014
    Nimbus data rescue
    Recovering the past to understand the future

    “By extending the satellite record back to the 1960s, we can understand more about the history and natural variability in things like sea ice extent in the Arctic, and the Antarctic,” said David Gallaher, technical services manager at NSIDC. The modern satellite record of sea ice goes back only to 1979.

    In 1964, the Beatles took the world by storm, Lyndon Johnson won his second term as President—and NASA launched the first of seven Nimbus spacecraft to study Earth from space.

    The Results:

    In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average.
    “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said.
    What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation.
    We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.

    “And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said.
    In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis.

    Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.”

    http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html

    Don’t believe that?

    See for yourself:

    SEPTEMBER 05, 2014 – Arctic adventure: A five-star journey into the wild
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/holiday-ideas/arctic-adventure-a-fivestar-journey-into-the-wild/story-fnjjv4qx-1227047996787

    Canary in the coal mine dead!
    Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

    “The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

    71

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Since the CAGW ‘science war’ has been lost ( pause unsettles science, and all that) what is left is ‘propaganda wars’. Increasingly shrill ‘denier’ stuff ( plenty of that today elsewhere In the US), improperly devised opinion polls (darned, that didn’t work), and plain old adverts (WMO weather from the future, Naomi Oreskes ‘science history’ book reporting from 400 years hence. I trust her Harvard seances went well, since plenty of ghosts there…turning over in their graves. John Adams to John Kennedy.
    Folks, you have the BOM on the run on homogenization. You already won an election on carbon taxes. Do not stop pounding. Turn an obvious battlefield route into ultimate victory. We will do our part elsewhere on this magnificent globe.

    231

    • #
      sophocles

      Naomi Oreskes ‘science history’ book reporting from 400 years hence.

      Oh boy. I bet she doesn’t realise it will be about the same as the 1500′s—well into the next Little Ice Age.
      What a giggle.

      71

  • #
    old44

    When the ABC gives 50% of its climate budget and time to skeptical arguments we will know the moon is made of green cheese and the tooth fairy is real.

    141

  • #
    Diver

    Well even Jo would have ticked yes on that survey. “Everything being equal doubling CO2 will ….”

    And why would the ABC gives 50% of its reporting budget to believers in skeptic sorcery by a predominantly angry white make audience over 55 ?

    BTW I clicked yes 10 times.

    121

    • #
      the Griss

      “white make audience over 55″

      Far better than listening to pre-pubescent, low IQ, non-entities….

      oh wait, that is who the ABC currently caters for.. there’s your explanation.

      ———

      I suspect many of your ilk would have pressed ‘yes’ several time, so the real percentage of actual people saying NO was probably way higher than stated.

      Thanks for confirming that.

      Yet another own goal.. not very good at this, are you little boy ! :-)

      141

      • #
        Diver

        Sorry I meant to say “predominantly angry and humorless white male audience over 55 ”

        Who said I’m a boy? more skeptic assumptions

        211

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz should like this one, if he can work out the figures***

    6 Sept: ZeeNewsIndia: India should go solar to bring down carbon emissions: British envoy on climate change
    British special representative on climate change Sir David King has said India should adopt the solar energy route to bring down carbon emissions, without compromising on its developmental goals. Sir King said, on a mass scale, solar energy would be economical to coal-fired thermal energy…
    I am going to argue that it is in India’s economic benefit to go down this route,” King was quoted as saying in an interview given to Indian Science Journal (ISJ) recently.
    According to a recent report jointly prepared by Bridge to India and Tata Power Solar, India has the potential to create ***1,45,000 MW of capacity and 6.7 lakh jobs in solar power sector over the next 10 years.
    King was in New Delhi to meet Indian officials, ahead of the Climate Summit convened by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York on September 23 to build momentum for a new universal agreement on climate change. While more than 125 world leaders are expected to attend the summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping of China are skipping the day-long meeting…
    http://zeenews.india.com/news/sci-tech/india-should-go-solar-to-bring-down-carbon-emissions-british-envoy-on-climate-change_1465780.html

    7 Sept: Guardian/Observer: Fuels rush in as energy blackout threat prompts action from National Grid
    The bizarre prospect of Britain being bailed out by ‘diesel generation parks’ is now a reality as an energy supply shortfall nears crisis point
    One of the new niche areas for investment in the energy sector is – no, not solar arrays, wind farms or anaerobic digestion plants, but diesel generation parks. It is one of the ironies of the current “energy crisis” that it has allowed the return of one of the most carbon-polluting technologies at a time when we are trying to tackle global warming.
    How did it happen? The running-down of traditional electricity generating capacity, due to the closure of old atomic reactors and dirty coal-fired plants, has left the UK threatened by the lights going out at peak times. And so enterprising, if not green, entrepreneurs have realised there is cash to be made by assembling a load of old diesel generators in a field or industrial park and offering them as power sources when the National Grid is struggling to meet demand…
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/07/energy-blackout-threat-action-diesel-generation-parks

    91

  • #
    pat

    on Jo’s “ABC invites BOM and Marohasy to speak ” thread recently, i posted the following ABC/Brian Schmidt link in which he suggested the Govt provide massive funds for CAGW research, on the order of the Apollo Programme. seems like this is becoming a meme:

    AUDIO: 28 Aug: ABC Big Ideas: Science and society
    Professor Brian Schmidt, a Nobel Prize winning astronomer and physicist, addresses a number of key issues confronting Australian scientists and researchers…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/science-and-society/5680792

    Sir David comes begging for money, not offering any!

    5 Sept: The Hindu: Meena Menon: Global Apollo Programme proposed to develop climate technologies
    Interview with Sir David King, special representative on climate change, UK, who is currently on a visit to India. Excerpts.
    What is the reason for your visit? What do think about operationalising the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and technology transfer to developing countries?
    The British government has been very keen to see the operationalising of the Green Climate Fund(GCF). It was never us blocking the operationalising process nor was it the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It appears that we are now close to operationalising the GCF and we will be pushing for that to be developed and we are ready to put money into it from a British point of view.
    The key point of my visit to India is we are proposing to set up a new program, called the Global Apollo Programme. Its objective is not to land a man on the moon but to reach the point where renewable energy is cheaper to produce electricity.
    The objective of this is to create a consortium of willing countries to join in this process. This is likely to include Britain, Japan, US and other European countries. But what is very important for us is to feel that India is willing to come on board – the proposal is that each country will put three members on the consortium which will develop a roadmap of research, development and demonstration projects to achieve its objectives. We are looking to raise through this process a fund of $10 billion a year for ten years which would go into research.
    In India, this should allay the fears of technology transfer because you would be involved in the development of new technology. Every country has to put in money. We are looking at ten countries and suggesting an entrance fee of 0.2 per cent of their GDP…
    What do you think of India’s stand and the issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)…
    In essence CBDR can be interpreted in different ways, depending on who is talking. I certainly accept the principle of CBDR but then we may disagree about how that should be interpreted. In particular we really have to recognise that the world has changed since 1992. When you say India and China are developing countries, I am going to suggest there is a very big difference between the least developed countries in today in the world and India, China and Brazil which have accelerated their growth so much that they have to be described as emerging powers/economies…
    We are not saying that, for example, for India because you are only just over two tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide emissions at the moment. I think we can anticipate a trajectory from India that would be a good one for India where it increases its emissions while development continues through burning coal but with a plan by 2050 to keep emissions at two tonnes per person per annum. That keeps us at two degrees C and allows India room for developing while new technologies come through…
    http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/global-apollo-programme-proposed-to-develop-climatetechnologies/article6382415.ece

    oh dear!

    2 July: CNS News: Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’
    97% Climate Consensus ‘Most Nonsensical, Stupid Number in the World’
    Climate alarmism is “the biggest fraud in the field of science” and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

    51

    • #
      Tim

      “…a consortium of willing countries to join in this process.”

      I seem to remember this phrase used in another context. Same speechwriter, perhaps.

      20

    • #
      diogenese2

      Pat – not for the first time you have made my weekend by digging up something I knew nothing about – “The Global Apollo Programme” and we have sent the worst possible salesman
      to India to persuade them , at a time when they are facing, in the form of inadequate supply of electricity, exactly the ruin we are about to inflict on ourselves, …to persuade them to contribute 0.2% of their GDP to the UN’s “green climate slush fund”.
      The impossible objective of the G.O.P. is to “reach the point where renewable energy is cheaper to provide electricity”.
      The Indians have great mathematicians and Engineers ( the duff ones being seconded to the IPCC) and KNOW this is the main usable produce of the sacred cow.
      I am elated with the thought that within the UK establishment there are still talents that see Sir David King as the one person who can guarantee to keep the BRIC nations on their course to wreck the Paris 2015 deal on emissions and assert their right, under the UNFCCC agreement to dig coal until their people have equity (equal emissions per head) with the developed world.
      There may even be a God after all.

      40

  • #
    Matty - Perth

    As the “Matty” who was stuck on the computer all day and keeping tabs on the ninemsn poll it didn’t ever jump around. When I started monitoring the poll there was only a few thousands votes each and at that point it was a 44% no. Through the day it climbed very slowly to 46%. If the poll was crashed by greenies then they must have done it at the start. I was surprised a how stable it was all day.

    51

  • #
    MadJak

    For the CSIRO to be 99.999% sure of MMAGW, it means that 0.001% of it’s employees are sceptical.

    A Quick look shows that 6500 people work at the CSIRO, so I’m guessing this means that 6.5 of their employees are sceptical.

    So based on this, with 47% of the ninemsn sample population being sceptical as well, it suggests to me that employment at the CSIRO is predetermined by ones’ ability to participate in group polarisation and risky shift behaviours.

    Now for me to be paying taxes to any public institution that conducts itself in this manner is utterly appalling. In fact, I would state quite clearly that it is an obscene abomination and an infringement of all that could be called decent to expect me to pay taxes to fund such an institution if this is the case.

    92

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Madjak,
      Pls check your calculation and report back to math teacher after school.

      60

      • #
        MadJak

        Thanks for picking that Up Geoff,

        Yes, there is a major error in my calculation. I referred to 47% in the poll, rather than 46%. Unlike others I am more than happy to acknowledge and correct my mistakes.

        Still, I don’t need no education, we’re gonna be rock stars… Haw Haw Haw

        41

  • #
    Mervyn

    Peoples’ opinions are irrelevant when it comes to the climate. What matters are the scientific data. The scientific data provide the evidence. That is where you find what everyone needs to know.

    And right now, the real world observational data on climate is telling us a different story about the climate to the pseudo-science propaganda promoted by the alarmists.

    81

  • #
    thingadonta

    Most climate scientists can fool themselves all of the time, but you can’t fool most of the public all of the time.

    101

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    I’m glad we can now vote for a warmer climate. Please vote yes. This winter has been too cold to get out in my kayak.

    80

  • #
    pat

    MSM meme of the day: manipulated CO2 “intensity” figures.

    suggestion for a poll for the MSM: do you know the difference between reducing CO2 emissions and reducing “carbon intensity”?

    7 Sept: Financial Times: Emerging economies outpace G7 on tackling climate change
    By Pilita Clark in London
    The so-called E7 group of the seven major emerging economies, which include the world’s biggest manufacturing centres, cut their carbon intensity – carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of gross domestic product – by an average of 1.7 per cent last year…
    “This, if continued, is a critical development,” said PwC, which has been analysing global carbon intensity performances for the past six years…
    In order to reach the 2C goal, global carbon intensity would have to be cut by an average of 6 per cent a year, the report says, but last year’s global cut was only 1.2 per cent, meaning the planet is on track to warm by 4C by the end of the century.
    “A 6 per cent reduction doesn’t sound that dramatic but it’s never been achieved globally and we need to sustain that rate for decades,” said Jonathan Grant, PwC’s director of sustainability and climate change…
    …the UN is holding a climate summit in New York this month in an effort to encourage progress.
    ***But it is unclear how many leaders of large countries will attend the summit, apart from President Barack Obama of the US and François Hollande, the French leader.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9bec7772-34e6-11e4-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html

    8 Sept: SMH: Reuters: World falls behind in efforts to tackle climate change, PwC report finds
    The sixth annual Low Carbon Economy Index report from professional services firm PwC looked at the progress of major developed and emerging economies towards reducing their carbon intensity, or emissions per unit of gross domestic product.
    “The gap between what we are achieving and what we need to do is growing wider every year,” PwC’s Jonathan Grant said. He said governments were increasingly detached from reality in addressing the 2 degree goal.
    “Current pledges really put us on track for 3 degrees”…
    Grant said that to achieve the 6.2 per cent annual cut would require changes of an even greater magnitude than those achieved by recent major shifts in energy production in some countries…
    PwC said one glimmer of hope was that for the first time in six years emerging economies such as China, India and Mexico had cut their carbon intensity at a faster rate than industrialised countries such as the United States, Japan and the European Union…
    Britain, Italy and China each achieved a decarbonisation rate of 4-5 per cent, while five countries increased their carbon intensity: France, the United States, India, Germany and Brazil.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-falls-behind-in-efforts-to-tackle-climate-change-pwc-report-finds-20140908-10dqfr.html

    10

    • #

      pat, thanks for this, in an indirect way.

      I noted how they just want to change the meme here by semantics, you know changing the wording to make their argument somehow stack up, hence the new term ‘carbon intensity’, and it (again) prompted me to engage in a new search.

      You know how you’re continually searching for information, and a lot relies on the wording you actually put into the search engine you use. Fool around long enough by changing the wording by little bits and you end up hopefully finding something close to what you wanted in the first place, and when a page of links open up, you follow some of the links, and on it goes etc.

      Finding information about electrical power in China is tricky at best, and I found a link from another link, so clicking on that, it took me to a page for China Power, which was all written in Chinese. So, copy the whole link in the address bar, and then paste that address into a search engine. When the page comes up, that Chinese address comes up in Chinese at the top of the page of links. (see this link to the page of links)

      Wait.

      Don’t click on that Chinese text. See written under that Chinese text is the link, and then highlighted in blue (a further link) is the wording translate this page. Click on that, and it changes all the text at the link into English.

      So then, here’s the English link to the most recent electrical power generation data for China, released in January, and for the year 2013.

      Okay now, let’s go back for one minute.

      Have you ever seen a page more ridiculous than the page at this link, and, umm, lo and behold, it’s a Wikipedia page.

      Why is it so ridiculous?

      Look across at the right hand column ….. average power per capita. They have no idea at all, but just as an exercise, scroll down and look at the single figure numbers there, virtually all of them African Countries.

      The intent is to show that Developed Countries are disgusting high end users of electricity. What they fail to take into account is access to a reliable source of electricity, in all of the three main sectors of consumption, Industry, Commerce and Residential.

      In most already developed Countries the amount of total generated power which is consumed in the residential sector varies, but not by much. It’s up around the mid 30 percent, some higher, like the U.S. where it is 38% and some lower, like Australia, where it is only around 26%, but here in Oz, we use Natural Gas (NG) more in the residential sector than most other Countries which use electricity for the heating and cooking etc which we use in greater proportion here in Oz with NG.

      So then look at all that lovely information for China at the link.

      Note here that the percentage of power going to that residential sector is only 12.75%, and barely five years ago, that percentage was a little less than 5%.

      So, as China has Industrialised, one of the benefits of that is the ever increasing need for electrical power, and as new power plants have been built at a huge rate, the advantage of that is that people in their homes are now receiving access to electrical power, slowly rising but still way behind what we have in our already Developed Countries.

      By way of comparison, the U.S. consumes 1391TWH of power in that Residential sector for its population of 320 Million

      China consumes 680TWH in its Residential sector for its population of 1.37 Billion.

      So China consumes half the US power in the Res sector with 4.3 times the population.

      That doesn’t tell me that Chinese residents are more frugal consumers of electricity. More to the point that probably a third to a half of China still has no access to electricity in their homes, and that’s around 600 million people or even more.

      The same applies in India with probably as high as 750 million without power, and Africa with more than 600 Million with no power.

      So, where Wikipedia uses that utterly ridiculous indicator, the true facts are much more telling.

      That page of data from China has so much wonderful information on it.

      Tony.

      30

  • #
    pat

    Sept: Guardian: Climate change back on the agenda
    Later this month world leaders will gather in New York for a historic summit on climate change. This is an opportunity to inspire key decision-makers to act in the face of a growing climate crisis that threatens almost every aspect of our lives. Politicians all over the world cite a lack of public support as a reason not to take bold action against climate change. So on 21 September we will meet this moment with unprecedented public mobilisations in cities around the world, including thousands of people on the streets of London. Our goal is simple – to demonstrate the groundswell demand that exists for ambitious climate action…
    History is our proof that the impossible is smaller than we think. The abolition of slavery. The end of apartheid. The spread of universal suffrage. All proof that the future is ours to shape. We just need to step out and claim it.
    (Ricken Patel Executive director, Avaaz, David Babbs Executive director, 38 Degrees, John Sauven Executive director, Greenpeace-UK, Matthew Frost Chief executive, Tearfund, Mark Goldring Chief executive, Oxfam, Justin Forsyth CEO, Save the Children, David Nussbaum CEO, WWF-UK, Neil Thorns Chair, The Climate Coalition, Chris Bain Director, Cafod, Loretta Minghella CEO, Christian Aid, Andy Atkins Executive director, Friends of the Earth, Claire James Campaign against Climate Change, Sam Fairbairn National secretary, People’s Assembly Against Austerity)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/07/climate-change-back-on-agenda

    don’t know about everyone else, but for weeks – every time i play a youtube video – it begins with greetings to climate warriors, & promotes Al Gore’s Why? Why not? campaign. very annoying:

    16 Aug: BrandChannel: Al Gore Turns to Social Media to Recruit New Army of Climate Warriors
    Founder of the “inconvenient truth,” former US Vice President and staunch environmentalist Al Gore is continuing his climate crusade on social media. His latest campaign, “Why? Why Not?” targets young people between the ages of 13 and 21 and enrolls them as advocates of the climate change movement.
    Part of the larger Climate Reality Project, Gore turned to WPP, the world’s largest communications services group, to launch the campaign…
    As part of the campaign, young adults are asked to submit a video via Instagram or YouTube that poses a “Why?” or “Why not?” question about climate change for the upcoming U.N. Climate Summit on September 23. Six individuals will be chosen to fly to New York for the summit and ask their questions in person…
    GPY&R Sydney took the lead on the creative, but was joined by JWT, Maxus, the Futures Company, PPR Australia, the Glover Park group, Blue State Digital and VICE…
    The campaign continues through December 2015 when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s conference will take place…
    Gore, meanwhile, is also in the news for suing Al Jazeera for $65 million, money he claims it owes him and former partner Joel Hyatt for the purchase of Current TV.
    http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2014/08/18/140818-Al-Gore-Climate-Change.aspx

    20

  • #
    pat

    7 Sept: The Hindu: Sidharth Birla: This business of climate change
    (The writer is the president of Ficci – Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry )
    The cost of adopting mitigation technologies and the collapse of carbon credit markets remain major concerns.
    ***The carbon market presented an opportunity for new businesses to emerge that dealt with advising, consulting and verifying the generation of carbon credits…
    Key elements
    Six key elements that will provide industry the impetus for climate change mitigation through the international regime, need to be taken up at the global level.
    First, access to international climate finance is the most critical element…
    Last, a high level panel under the UNFCCC recommended setting up of a stabilisation fund for carbon credits generated and not sold. This can revive the confidence of companies at a time when there is virtually no carbon market…
    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/this-business-of-climate-change/article6388589.ece

    if they are serious about ZERO emissions, NGOs should follow the example of world leaders and NOT FLY TO NEW YORK for the Summit:

    8 Sept: BusinessGreen: James Murray: World leaders urged to aim for ‘zero emissions’ this century
    Green NGOs call on world leaders preparing to travel to New York summit to target full decarbonisation, as UN climate chief makes case for ‘climate neutrality’.
    The report, which is backed by Christian Aid, Greenpeace, Green Alliance, RSPB and WWF, calls on Prime Minister David Cameron to make the case for an international agreement that is partly modelled on the UK’s Climate Change Act and its system of five year carbon budgets…
    It argues this approach would allow the agreement to evolve as the latest climate science demands and enable a “virtuous circle of action” whereby ambition can be increased as countries start to prove the viability of greener economic models…
    The move comes just days after head of the UN climate change secretariat, Christiana Figueres, and Nobel Prize-winning chemist, Mario Molina, penned an article calling for this month’s New York meeting to focus on delivering decarbonisation at a global scale.
    “Like a young person planning their career, a mayor looking at future demographics or a corporation evolving a business strategy, there also needs to be a long term view of where we want to be 50 years or so down the road,” they wrote in the article, published in the Guardian. “That long term vision is ‘climate neutrality’ – ie not putting in more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than natural processes take out – as soon as possible in the second half of the century.”…
    The meeting received something of a blow last week as UN officials privately indicated that Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will not attend. But US President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak at the day-long meeting and a flurry of activity is expected in the run-up to the event, most notably in the form of the launch of several major reports exploring the benefits associated with green economic models…
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2363779/world-leaders-urged-to-aim-for-zero-emissions-this-century

    00

    • #
      Annie

      I take it that the female of the climate warrior species will be giving up her ‘girl’s best friend’ holdings as there is a need to ‘decarbonise’?! I’m thinking particularly of all those vapid filmstars. What’s the best way to decarbonise human beings…the C has to go somewhere, dunnit?

      10

    • #

      Oh, ho ho ho! Thanks pat, and will you just get what this idiot said here: (my bolds)

      8 Sept: BusinessGreen: James Murray: World leaders urged to aim for ‘zero emissions’ this century
      Green NGOs call on world leaders preparing to travel to New York summit to target full decarbonisation, as UN climate chief makes case for ‘climate neutrality’.

      Hmm!

      Just wonderin’ now. What are they going to construct their, umm, concrete wind towers out of, and I also wonder what they’re going to use instead of steel to make all the internals for the generation process out of, and all those other elements in there as well, the magnets in the generators, the gearbox, the thousands of metres of wires wrapped around the Stator and the Rotor, the gearbox.

      Plastic?

      Umm, no, that uses fossil fuels as well.

      That goes for every form of power generation.

      This is the classic case of ….. Open mouth change feet.

      Tony.

      60

      • #
        the Griss

        “World leaders urged to aim for ‘zero emissions’ this century”

        This is probably the most STUPID thing mankind could possibly do.

        The small amount of extra CO2 that humans are releasing from buried carbon deposits is TOTALLY NECESSARY for the future development of mankind, and the survival of the planet. !!

        40

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 1HR 7 MINS: 5 Sept: WGBH: Why Do People Deny Climate Change?
    By Alison Bruzek & Jack Doyle
    (George) Marshall explains why he believes climate change is “the perfect crime” and why the innate psychology of human beings is inhibiting our ability to understand and accurately confront climate change. Having interviewed leaders in social psychology, Marshall discusses the importance of reframing views of climate change for those who still deny its existence.
    This talk was taped on September 3, 2014.
    http://wgbhnews.org/post/why-do-people-deny-climate-change

    Amazon: George Marshall: Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change
    Most of us recognize that climate change is real, and yet we do nothing to stop it. What is this psychological mechanism that allows us to know something is true but act as if it is not? George Marshall’s search for the answers brings him face to face with Nobel Prize-winning psychologists and the activists of the Texas Tea Party; the world’s leading climate scientists and the people who denounce them; liberal environmentalists and conservative evangelicals. What he discovered is that our values, assumptions, and prejudices can take on lives of their own, gaining authority as they are shared, dividing people in their wake…
    Once we understand what excites, threatens, and motivates us, we can rethink and reimagine climate change, for it is not an impossible problem. Rather, it is one we can halt if we can make it our common purpose and common ground. Silence and inaction are the most persuasive of narratives, so we need to change the story.
    In the end, Don’t Even Think About It is both about climate change and about the qualities that make us human and how we can grow as we deal with the greatest challenge we have ever faced.

    Editorial Reviews
    “The science of climate change is easy: burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gasses that are warming our world. George Marshall reminds us about the hard part: connecting the wellhead to the tailpipe in people’s minds as soon as possible. Please read this book, and think about it. Let’s get to work.” —Bill Nye

    “Clearly we’re not responding to the reality of climate change with the speed the crisis requires. This book explains some of the reasons that could be—and how we might work around them in the short time that we have.” —Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth

    “Illuminating and important—makes clear why we continue down a dangerous path of increasing climate disruption, even when attractive, hospitable, alternative paths are available.” —James Hansen, author of Storms of My Grandchildren and Former Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies…

    About the Author
    George Marshall is the founder of the Climate Outreach and Information Network, based in Oxford UK, and over the past 25 years has worked at all levels of theenvironmental movement including senior positions for Greenpeace US and the Rainforest Foundation. He is one of the leading European experts in climate change communications, is a lead advisor to the Welsh Government, and counts major environmental organizations, politicians, faith groups, businesses, and trades unions among his clients…
    http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Even-Think-About-It/dp/1620401339

    10

  • #
    pat

    did Ban Ki-Moon fly to Greenland for this photo op before or after his flight to Costa Rica for a post-bicycle-ride photo-op, see Reuters’ link “U.N. chief tries to kick-start sagging enthusiasm for climate deal” in comments on Jo’s 99.99999% thread?

    4 Sept: Guardian: New York climate summit is a chance to push for long-term climate neutrality
    A meeting of heads of state with Ban Ki-moon is an opportunity to look at how we get greenhouse gas emissions to zero
    by Christiana Figueres and Mario Molina
    PHOTO CAPTION: Greenland and Denmark hosted a visit to Greenland by Ban Ki-moon (left) in preparation for the UN climate summit in New York.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/04/its-time-to-take-the-long-view-on-climate-change

    10

  • #
    pat

    7 Sept: UK Daily Mail: Say goodbye to summer! Snow comes a month early with SEVEN states due to drop into freezing conditions over the next week thanks to another Polar Vortex
    Snow could hit Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Forecasters believe the early temperature drop is due to a polar vortex
    Significant ‘chill in the air’ expected over Great Lakes region
    By Mail Online Reporter
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746424/Snow-comes-month-early-year-seven-states-seeing-white-week.html

    7 Sept: Accuweather: Alex Sosnowski: Frost to Hit, Snow Possible in Parts of North Central States
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/frost-snow-possible-north-central/33510295

    10

  • #
    William

    Just a diversion, but to me, a very puzzling issue:

    There is the the requirement that all conventional generators connected to the grid have to be perfectly synchronized to provide a grid frequency of 60Hz (or whatever) and 120 volts (or corresponding whatever).

    However, also connected to the grid are wind farms and solar arrays. Literally thousands of them.
    These power sources cut in and out on a random basis, and provide highly variable output.

    So how are all these thousands of individual sources synchronized to the grid? And what is the effect on the overall grid supply of these sources as their fluctuating output is added/subtracted from the grid?

    10

    • #
      The Backslider

      So how are all these thousands of individual sources synchronized to the grid?

      With a lot of money.

      20

  • #
    Lord Jim

    CSIRO 99.999% sure global warming caused by humans.

    Great, so where is the /evidence/?

    If they are 99.999% sure they should be able to produce incontrovertible evidence that any global warming caused prior to the (oops) pause was caused by humans!

    Waiting!!

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    Lol @ “underestimates skeptics”. I mean for sure it’s a flawed poll but there is no way to say it favours one way or the other.

    02

  • #
    pat

    best i post the following stuff here, instead of at the new thread:

    MSM is in a huge spin over the following:

    8 Sept: SMH: Kate McClymont: ICAC lifts suppression order on Peta Credlin and Paul Nicolaou emails
    The emails reveal that, in March 2011, while the Coalition was in opposition, Ms Credlin used a major donor to the Liberal Party, Brickworks, as part of Tony Abbott’s campaign against the carbon tax…
    The ICAC has heard that Brickworks used the Free Enterprise Foundation, a shadowy Canberra-based organisation, to channel $125,000 in illicit donations to the NSW Liberals for the March 2011 state election…
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/icac-lifts-suppression-order-on-peta-credlin-and-paul-nicolaou-emails-20140908-10dr7v.html

    8 Sept: Guardian: Paul Farrell: Peta Credlin dragged into Icac controversy over carbon tax emails
    Tony Abbott’s chief of staff welcomed approach from Liberal party donor who stood to benefit from tax repeal
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/peta-credlins-email-developers-comments-released-icac

    yet, on the same day we have the following which, according to google results, was originally headlined:

    The ‘fraud’ that will haunt Gillard
    The Age-3 hours ago
    The defining promise of her one election campaign as leader – no carbon tax – turned out to be a falsity. Even her greatest legislative legacy, the National…

    8 Sept: The Age: Paul Sheehan: Two shades of limelight for Julia Gillard with Royal Commission and memoir launch
    History will record that the largest criminal organisation in Australia was protected by the first woman prime minister of Australia. This is going to be a big month for Julia Gillard’s reputation. Starting as early as Tuesday, she is likely to be called as a witness by the Royal Commission into Union Corruption…
    Gillard’s name will always be associated with the word “fraud”. Frauds committed not by her but by others she supported. There is also a direct correlation between Gillard’s actions as PM and the brazen contempt for law that has broken out across the construction industry, with national economic ramifications…
    The Gillard flow-on is evidenced by the 150 active investigations of fraud, intimidation and criminality currently under way, with the majority directed at the CFMEU…
    Gillard’s actions while prime minister have had huge ramifications because the construction industry is huge, on a par with the mining industry, which is regarded as the engine of the economy…
    On Gillard’s watch, and as a direct result of some of her actions, the construction industry saw an outbreak of cost blow-outs and on-site intimidation that contributed to ending the mining boom and continues to inflate the cost of infrastructure, inhibit investment and destroy jobs.
    None of this will even get a mention when Gillard is questioned at the Royal Commission this week…
    Whatever the outcome, Gillard has already been struck by fraud lightning far more than most politicians. The Labor figure on whose vote her government depended for survival, and whose reputation she defended, Craig Thomson, turned out to be a fraud and liar who misled the parliament on multiple occasions. The person she elevated to be speaker of the house, Peter Slipper, has since been convicted of fraud. Her former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, is immersed in multiple serious fraud allegations.
    The most defining speech of her career, the “misogyny” speech delivered in parliament on October 12, 2012, was based on not on evidence that Tony Abbott had a hatred of women but served as a cynical diversion from the scandals embroiling her leadership…
    The defining promise of her one election campaign as leader – no carbon tax – turned out to be a falsity..
    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/two-shades-of-limelight-for-julia-gillard-with-royal-commission-and-memoir-launch-20140907-10dljw.html

    00

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    I’m one of those who did not answer, since the technically correct answer of ‘yes’ would give the misleading impression that I support the alarmist narrative.
    I wonder how many who share my lukewarmer opinions did answer ‘yes’?

    00

  • #
    Walt Allensworth

    Another poorly worded poll, and done so deliberately I would guess so that the pollsters can denigrate those who disagree with them.

    Without spotting the hidden agenda, I’d probably have answered no, and been lumped in with the tin-hat crowd.

    I believe in “global warming”. BUT… I’m a luke-warmist.

    I believe our actions are increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the effect of this increase on global temperatures is small, and that this CO2 increase may result in a warmer and wetter climate with more natural fertilizer in the air (CO2) which will help feed a burgeoning world population.

    The actual question should be more like: do you believe that human produced CO2 will catastrophically warm the earth?

    00

  • #
    the Griss

    Humans do not produce CO2.

    They relase it from its accidentally burial.

    It is meant to be in the atmosphere.

    10

  • #
    RogueElement451

    Playing the numbers game ,whilst being vaguely satisfying,is not I believe a great way forward.
    Even if 97% of people become sceptics ,so long as one idiot in the Whitehouse is a true believer in CAGW then
    policy is not going to change.
    Like in most things , education is the key and we need to get more people like Mann in court ,so that their works can be exposed.
    Court actions against green policy has to be one way forward ,where judges demand evidence ,not wishy washy theory.

    00