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

Most Australians are skeptical: mankind is not main driver of the climate

The IPCC has told us in letters of fire for twenty years that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. But despite the unending propaganda 60% of Australians are not convinced. This fits with other better designed and much larger surveys by CSIRO showing that 53% of the population are skeptical, and a UK study which showed that 63% of British people were skeptical that storms and floods are probably man-made.

The IPSOS polls have been running for years, and are unashamedly pro-IPCC in leaning, but despite that obvious bias, and loaded, ambiguous questions, most Australians don’t agree that it is mainly our fault. The climate is changing but it is mainly or partly natural. IPSOS gloss over that, but if humans are responsible for less than half of “climate change” that makes Direct Action twice as useless. If natural forces caused more of the recent warming, that also reduces the scary projections.

The IPSOS Climate Change Report 2015 (Online poll, 1,063 people)

Q3: Which best describes your opinion about the causes of climate change?

Poll Australians, Climate change, 2015, belief,

Only 40% of Australians accept the IPCC position that mankind is the main cause of climate change (orange and red). | Click to enlarge. See p 5 of the report.

Like nearly all polls, this one suffers from using the loaded and confounded term “climate change”. To the person filling out the form  it could mean either “man-made global warming” or “the climate… changes“. What were those survey designers and journalists thinking?  Not about accurate English, that’s for sure.

Three percent say “there is no such thing as climate change”. But given the abuse of the term and double meaning, it could be just a protest at being asked a silly question. Are there ice-ages? Has the worlds climate been stable for 4.5 billion years?

Meaningless and loaded questions

Question 8: Who should be mainly responsible for action on climate change?

Is that the government, businesses, or Mr Sun? Seriously,  for the 60% of respondents who don’t think humans are the main driving cause of climate change, how do they answer these questions? I think the state government should hold back the tides,  the NGO’s can deal with cosmic rays, and the local council can fix the magnetic field, right?

extinction of plants and animals, koala symbolQuestion 7: “In how many years, if at all, do you think climate change will cause the following in Australia”. The list of  coming disasters was fire and brimstone 101. IPSOS were not just wondering when the reef will get damaged, but looking for the “Destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.” Then there was the extinction of plants and animals with a little symbol of a Koala head socked in the eyes.

Most of the population said that climate change is mainly or partly natural. But if we substitute the word natural in front of climate change it all gets inane.  How many years will it take for natural climate change to destroy the Barrier Reef? ANS: It hasn’t done it yet in the last 20,000 years, why should 2050 be any different?

Let’s guess what the survey designers were thinking when they wrote this? 1/ Al Gore is right and these disasters are coming. or 2/ We need the best guess long range forecasts from the punters about what the natural climate is going to do this century: droughts, floods, fire and extinctions. What do they reckon?

Push polling anyone?

Question 7 is just a measure of the success of propaganda. (See the results below). When will the “decline in farming production” occur? 51% think that’s already happening.  But what is happening (scientifically at least) is “an increase in farming production“, and a “greening of the deserts“, which are recorded in hundreds of publications, but not an option for respondents. The future on offer are all modeled projections, or events that have been occurring since time began.

Australian poll, climate change, destruction of reef, ecosystems, drought, flood

Question 7 “In how many years, if at all, do you think climate change will cause the following in Australia” | Click to enlarge.

Most of the results and conclusions depend on selective use of two different definitions of “climate change”. The results of question 4 invalidate the rest of the survey where “climate change” is taken to mean man-made climate change.

When 62% of respondents say that climate change is already causing droughts, how many of those think it’s just natural climate change causing the drought?

Click here to Download the Ipsos Climate Change Report

Yes, it is only an online poll.

See posts like: Plants suck half the CO2 out of the air around them before lunchtime each day and Wetlands like CO2 — “Gimme 700ppm” say sedge-grass.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (84 votes cast)
Most Australians are skeptical: mankind is not main driver of the climate, 9.5 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

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

180 comments to Most Australians are skeptical: mankind is not main driver of the climate

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Yes the polls are biased and tricky to get the response they want and need. But, when the majority are skeptical,, a great battle has been won.
    Global Warming Tools: 1) incorrect models, 2) deliberately changed and corrupted data, 3) $billions, 4) the main stream media in all its forms, 5) the UN, 6) most governments, 7) propaganda in the schools from preschoolers to PhDs, 8) corrupted scientific journals with pal-review and high refusal rates for skeptical authors, 9) ACGW threats and bullying in all media classes, 10) the Nobel Prize Committee, and 11) many other tricks and tools and a seemingly endless number of nonprofits, NGOs, etc..
    Skeptical Scientists Tools: 1) Truth, and 2) honest science.

    443

    • #
      Carol Crumley

      Yes but they’re not experts. We can’t be guided by them. What we need is an Expertocacy, like there used to be under Labour.

      11

    • #
      Bill

      Ah, yes. IPSOS. Just like NANOS, the polling COMPANY deliberately shapes the questions to lead to a desired result according to who’s writing the cheques. They even try to influence election results…at least in Canada, they are consistently wrong on the federal side of things.

      00

  • #
    BernardP

    It is not obvious most Australians are skeptical.

    The pie chart shows that 83% of respondents think that climate change is caused partly, mainly, or completely by human activity. This means that 83% of respondents think human activity plays a *significant* role in climate change.

    On the other hand, there are only 14% of respondents who think that climate change is mainly or completely caused by natural processess. Of this, there is still 10% that attribute a minor part of responsibility to human activity.

    In the real world, as soon as partial responsibility for climate change is attributed to human activity, remedial action is called for.

    It seems the warmist propaganda is working.

    136

    • #

      There is no doubt that the propaganda works. And those who want to can find comforting statistics about the “desire” for action can find them in this study. But the IPCC has not said that humans cause some climate change, they said they are the dominant force.

      All the people answering could chose “mainly” man-made if they felt it was 50% or more man-made, but most didn’t, even though the survey was clearly designed from the assumption that climate change is mainly man-made.

      The bottom line is that there is much less justification for doing any kind of climate action if the man-made forcing is 40% or 30% or 20% of the total. If the recent warming was even half natural, that reduces the forecasts by half, and the point of action by more still.

      Technically many skeptics would have to answer “partly natural -partly man-made”. It’s an odd category.

      57% of people don’t think UN scientists can speak with authority on the climate. That fits with 60% of Australians not believeing the IPCC predictions.

      I’ve added in the lines at the top pointing to other better studies which give me confidence that most of the 43% of “partly-partly” people are skeptical rather than believer.

      UPDATE “This[60% figure] fits with other better designed surveys by CSIRO showing that 53% of the population are skeptical, and a UK study showed that 63% of British people are skeptical that storms and floods are probably man-made.”

      The CSIRO 2014 study was five times larger. 38% said “it’s just a natural fluctuation in earths temperatures”.

      403

      • #

        Joanne,
        Time to get labels correct. Here and about your blog we have not skeptics or deniers! We have here Heretics against the CAGW religion. Do the Climate Clowns have any any estimate of the number of heretics, and how very well armed such are! Seems all here are trying to be polite. How much longer will that persist? :-) -will-

        105

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          We should always be polite. Today and in the future. I think that is the best and most powerful, and, moral way to address the adversaries. Cursing those who curse us or shouting at those who shout at us only forces us to forget and forswear our truth and logic and sink to their level of personal attacks and disingenuous arguments.

          140

          • #

            I agree. It is very difficult to be polite to those that only wish to to conquer (verb) as in to overwhelm!

            60

          • #
            Rick Bradford

            Ridicule is the only way, as Saul Alinsky pointed out in Rules for Radicals.

            Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

            It works especially well against zealots who take themselves so seriously.

            Politeness is a luxury we cannot afford.

            50

            • #
              Leonard Lane

              Rick, Alinsky may have given good advice to radical leftists & communist agitators and others who hate a civil society. But advice for the evil rarely works as good advice for the average, decent taxpayer–they simply do not think in the ways of destroying your neighbors. Instead they think in terms of loving your neighbor. So, I still assert that polite, honest, and science based dialog are the only things to use in fighting the Green Blob.

              20

      • #

        Which sector of the pie graph aligns with the “scientific consensus”. I think it is the 43% that nominate part/part. This means 83% agree or are more alarmist than the scientists and 53% agree or are more conservative. 13% are uneducated.

        111

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Don’t you mean incorrectly educated?

          80

          • #

            no. I think they don’t know and just say whatever pops into their head – they are the random noise. Interesting that at a ratio of 3:1 of the ignorant ones is all man made: climate change does not exist.

            Taken at face value, this might reflect the proportion of noise among the other sections of the pie – around 13% of each pie section (maybe, possibly and for arguments sake). That is the real number for the 83% is 72% who actually have come to their conclusion with some thought or something like that.

            19

        • #
          Peter C

          Which sector of the pie graph aligns with the “scientific consensus”. I think it is the 43% that nominate part/part.

          Why do you think that?

          10

          • #

            Elementary PC. Scientists are the ones who’ve delved into the past and identified that the climate is a dynamic outcome of a great many processes, so they already know about natural processes. The consensus says that human activities are causing the total global energy to reach a higher equilibrium while these other processes are continuing to operate.

            All the models for local and global changes include all inputs as scientists know that whatever eventuates, whether their models were right or wrong about it, will be due to lots of different things including human inputs. I think that the part/part 43% is the closest representative of this given the limitations inherent in the question. Jo thinks that scientists fal into the orange categories but I disagree.

            05

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              So we ignore the stuff about surveys, which just clouds the issue and let’s go to the meat in the sandwich:

              says: “Elementary PC. Scientists are the ones who’ve delved into the past and identified that the climate is a dynamic outcome of a great many processes, so they already know about natural processes. The consensus says that human activities are causing the total global energy to reach a higher equilibrium while these other processes are continuing to operate.”

              It is very very unfortunate that the picture you paint of “Scientists” “knowing” about historical patterns of weather behaviour involves them also “ignoring” that information.

              Again, you mention the C word, the Consensus which we all know is the result of many minds thinking alike but not necessarily accurately.

              The science says to ME that man made CO2 CANNNOT produce any relevant effect wrt temperatures in the atmosphere.

              KK

              21

              • #

                KK… re consensus – I used that word in the sense that it has been presented and understood, whether you or I agree with it is immaterial regarding how I used it here. I should have written “consensus” to highlight this.

                Where is the published evidence that they have ignored past patterns. I’ll happily retract.

                Just to be clear is ME you or an acronym? Also to be clear, what science says that CO2 cannot produce the effect? Jo would like to know this too as her long standing request is for evidence in that regard. Her contention, and mine BTW, is that the evidence in the affirmative is scant but on the other hand, I don’t see evidence to the negative. If you have it the debate is over.

                02

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Thanks for the reply.

                ME is moi or me.

                Past patterns?

                You jest? Surely you jest.

                There have been several very well documented and identified heating and cooling cycles with a period of about 120,000 years.

                This period is reducing and is currently about 100,000 years with an interglacial section of about 15,000 years give or take.

                Based on past patterns we are about to enter another FREEZING event that will last about 80,000 years and condemn many people to the same fate as the Wooly Mammoths which also did not have the resources to get to a temperate zone to escape the ice, snow and freezing winds.

                In another 95,000 years our ancestors will be exhuming the frozen remains of those left behind in the scramble to the equator. Climate change; but the reverse of what the IPCCCCC is postulating.

                As to the possibility of CO2 being the demon it is made out to be, my scientific analysis, as put by MaryFJohnston :
                (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-587686 ) a long time ago is that even by the simple data presented by the early pushers of the CAGW myth man cannot be the cause.

                It is a QUANTITATIVE nonsense.

                even KK had something to say: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1130169

                KK

                http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-589711

                11

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                MaryFJohnston says it here:

                http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-592351

                and NO, I did not have any operation.

                KK

                11

              • #
                Gee Aye

                That’s great kk. I don’t think you have written anything that contests the statements I made earlier. Do you want me to comment on this stuff for some reason?

                Did you make the FF this year?

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                FF?

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                folk festival

                00

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Yes we did but I suspect they are saving up for next year the 50th.

                Must go to that .

                This year was a bit of a fizzer.

                KK

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                It is a long time since the PPFF

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Subtract that errant “Y”

                [Fixed it.] AZ

                00

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                OK I’ll bite.

                What’s a PPFF when it’s at home?

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Port Phillip folk festival

                10

      • #
        Richard the Great

        Didn’t the IPCC in their indefatigable wisdom redefine climate change as being man made i.e. there was no climate change before burning of fossil fuels? Climate change according to the IPCC definition cannot be natural. Natural variation is climate variability. Shades of organic (pertaining to the complex chemistry of carbon) sugar. All adds to mass confusion which is exactly what these manipulators want.

        103

    • #

      I know so many people that used to believe and are now well and truly sceptical, including now young adults. The climate worriers have themselves to blame because of all the catastrophe horror stories they have been telling over the last decade, which never eventuate. The climate worriers don’t even attempt to apologise for these major errors, but keep on with the same tales. When you cry wolf all the time and there are no wolves, eventually people start to wise up.

      362

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think *most* australians have a finely tuned BS meter.

        Eventually when the warmists started saying that their Aunt Mabel’s electric water heater would cause Brisbane to become a dragon with pink spots, most people realized the CAGW nonsense was just that – nonsense.

        A good friend of mine is a concreter – a very down to earth bloke. He knows its BS, and if people like him are a decent size chunk of the population, then most of the CAGW nonsense has traction amongst the uni educated world. As such, many times I’ve had the occasional good natured barb about “how many years did you go to uni?” when I did something a bit impractical – now extend that out to the uni eduicated who are too smart for their own good and can rationalize a pile of BS into a shining tower of moral good…you get the idea. Sometimes intelligence doesnt translate to logic or common sense….

        263

        • #
          Annie

          “Sometimes intelligence doesn’t translate to logic or common sense”

          So right…I’ve been saying that for years.

          31

        • #
          StefanL

          “the spread of secondary and tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”
          — Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine

          31

      • #

        Here are a few more sceptics (from a different point of view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4&sns=em. :)

        20

    • #
      bobl

      Bernard,
      I think Jo missed your point. Yes, the rhetoric is AIMED at exploiting the demonstrated weakness in the sceptic case, IE. That the actual fact is that mankind must have some sort of warming footprint on the planet – UHI demonstrates this clearly, and we all experience this when we travel from populated to unpopulated areas. The survey is deliberately twisting the space into the warmist camp, so they can say that 80%+ support energy taxation to fund the UN. They ignore the fact that this is the mainstream sceptic position so they can claim those minds for themselves, it’s a classic bait and switch, exactly the same as Cook’s cooked survey. Survey based of UN CC definition (most warming controlled by man) count based on “Any manmade warming above zero”. It worked for Cook why not for IPSOS.

      However, it’s very interesting that this self selective survey still gets the portions this bad, given the vote early, vote often activist set have undoubtedly had their say, the actual proportions are probably even more sceptic that the survey shows. The internet is undoubtedly left leaning, conservatives are more likely to be off running their businesses.

      Jo is technically right that any position other than most warming is caused by man is a sceptic position, but you are also absolutely right; it wont play out that way after the spin doctors get to it.

      183

      • #
        BernardP

        You last paragraph shows that you got my point: Raw numbers from the IPSOS poll show there is a strong majority of Australians that attribute a significant part of climate change to human activity.

        313

        • #
          Dariusz

          You a got green thumb from me as I agree with you. According to this poll I would be in a 4 percentile (does not believe man made climate crap) minority. This is not the first and not the last time and today it seems that I am against the red thumbs.
          The fact that we have such a huge portion of the population that thinks that we are primary cause of climate crap is worrying and we should not congratulate ourselves or somehow think that we are winning.
          Their propaganda has been more succeful than Goebells. Within a period of less than 20 years a non-problem has been created in a most successful fashion. Climate crap has spilled into hatered of other fields, coal seem gas, fossil fuel, not too mention of nuclear energy that continues unabated. A concerted attacks on freedom of speech, attack of capitalism, denigration of science, universities, good names of people, abuse, serious calls to behead us, demanding money 89trillion from memory – 4 times the cost of IIWW (adjusted to money of the day) and on my personal front loosing friends when I talked about the weather.

          No, we are not winning or you may assume that people are just dumb. In my books I,m afraid that both conclusions are correct.

          41

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      86% of respondents with an opinion agree with human-caused climate change – that is a good result.

      10

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Climate change is real, I think we can all agree with that.

    As to what causes climate change, that’s the rub.

    Alarmists appear to believe that sometime in the early 1950s all, or most, natural climate change ceased, to be immediately superseded by man made climate change.

    The ‘pause’/'hiatus’ in global temperatures has resulted in the alarmist fraternity morphing the old fashioned term global warming (obviously false) into the new highly fashionable one of climate change (obviously true).

    The scary thing about these polls is just how many people, usually suffering from the uniquely leftist infliction of ‘Save the World Syndrome’, are taken in by the siren concept of man made climate change – 10% say man is entirely to blame and 30% say man is mostly to blame for climate change. Perhaps, it is worth remembering that the world’s average IQ is circa 100, which is not very bright. Of course, the infamous psycho-babblist Lew would put a totally different spin on this last statement.

    273

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Humbug
      The more things change, the more they seem the same. This is the way it was in 1897.

      Dear Editor, I am 8 years old.
      Some of my little friends say there is no climate change.
      Papa says, “If you see it in The Guardian, it’s so.”
      Please tell me the truth, is there climate change?
      Virginia

      Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole truth and knowledge.
      Yes, Virginia, there is a climate change. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no climate change! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
      Not believe in climate change! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch climate change, but even if they did not see climate change coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees climate change, but that is no sign that there is no climate change. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
      You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
      No climate change! Thank God he lives and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10 thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

      92

    • #
      Manfred

      As Jo identifies well, the IPSOS Climate Change Report is no more than societal grooming. On reading the survey it is pure, unadulterated distortion and propaganda. The methodology and sample size are risible and reading the survey should come with the same health warnings that accompany tobacco products, benzene, alcohol, and dangerous drugs for that matter. At the very least, the survey should come with a generic prescription for a beta-blocker.

      The Ipsos Climate Change Report survey was conducted online. In total 1,063 respondents were surveyed. Quotas were set on the age and gender of respondents, and post-weighted to ensure an exact match of the Australian population.

      The survey preamble includes the following fatuous statement:

      Climate change is already affecting Australia with more intense and more frequent droughts and heatwaves, rising sea levels and changing rainfall; these changes have resulted in increasing pressure on water supplies and agricultural production.

      and, in the summary of the survey is unfettered intellectual arrogance. There is no pretense.

      A large proportion of those who think they understand the likely causes and impacts of climate change are still likely to indicate that it is hard to be sure about claims made about climate change and are not necessarily able to correctly identify the causes of climate change

      As I have frequently mentioned before, ‘climate change‘ is a predefined UN term. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the understanding that the person in the street has of the two words, ‘climate’ and ‘change’. The survey makes a pathetic attempt to “evaluate” the adoption and success of the UN defined term, but in actuality merely serves as a vehicle to peddle the propaganda and the term further. As we know, the institutionalised obfuscation is intentional.

      Theoretically and literally the climate is influenced by an enormous range of direct and indirect influences, many of which we may never either know nor necessarily fully understand. Non-linear chaotic systems do not readily bend to the will, even in parallel with the fanciful and equally chaotic ideological excitation of rabid eco-marxists, who have thus far proved themselves extremely limited in this regard.

      Moreover, as we all well know, the concept of UN defined climate change is a gross predetermination, an ideological driven distortion of reality that makes their life easier and their goals clearer.

      Thanks Jo. Keep calling it out at every available opportunity.

      182

      • #
        ROM

        May I make one very small addition to the above quote via Manfred @ 3.2 which I think alters the entire context and meaning given to it by IPSOS

        A large proportion of those —scientists— who think they understand the likely causes and impacts of climate change are still likely to indicate that it is hard to be sure about claims made about climate change and are not necessarily able to correctly identify the causes of climate change.

        And that about sums up the state of play in the whole of the CAGW play list.

        It is ironic in fact that this statement can be applied very specifically and quite accurately to the whole gamut of alarmist scientists in place of IPSOS’s intended target of the “denier ignoramuses”.

        20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    People are even starting to wake up to the loaded surveys, as Jo points out the different contexts of ‘climate change’ this difference will become increasingly important to the general populous as the climate doesn’t change as prophesized but the demand for money increases, 1+1=2 MUCH!

    221

  • #
    Robert O

    Like all polls the questions tend to be loaded, particularly with the use of concept of “climate change”. This covers everything from global warming to global cooling, but most think it still means global warming. If we cannot define what it is, then how can we prevent it?

    The questions imply that the current conditions on planet earth are normal and any change is seen as a deviation whereas the history of the planet is one of flux with ice ages, continental drift and so on.

    In view of the constant media and political barrage it’s pleasing to see that only 40% of the respondents attribute climate change to human activity.

    161

    • #
      skeptic56109

      When I tell people that I’m waiting for some global warming, they say our problem is not really global warming but climate change characterized by increase in storms, droughts etc.
      I believe the warming enthusiasts should not be allowed to differentiate between global warming and climate change. The math, the physics, and the models are the same. Proponents of the original global warming and the more innocuous sounding climate change seek to limit temperature increase by 2100 to 2C.
      I tell these people that the adoption of the new mantra “climate change” was necessary simply because “global warming” was starting to sound a little ridiculous.
      Oh, and there are not more frequent or severe storms, droughts etc.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    Our fault? In Australia, we are part of the tiny 2% of the world’s population which lives below the Tropic of Capricorn. 98% of the CO2 comes into Australia from overseas. So we should do something about it? Yes, levy taxes on all foreign CO2. 49% of that CO2 comes from China alone but they earn carbon credits from us?

    As for the magnitude of our offensive behaviour in living, 2% of the world’s CO2 is produced by 1.4Billion Chinese just breathing out, more than all our output. The population of China has grown 1.0 billion since 1950, so this is new CO2 like new cars.

    Alternatively, you can take the view that it is all nonsense, that CO2 is a tiny 0.04% set by the 98% of CO2 in the ocean already at a 0.5% concentration 5ml/litre and the tiny bit generated from old plant matter does not matter and is also carbon neutral and the half life of CO2 in the air is 14 years, so it all vanishes quickly. Then you can prove that man generated CO2 is less than 4% of total aerial CO2, so it is all fantasy. Someone needs to tell the IPCC about equilibrium of dissolved gases and how fish get fresh air and breathe out CO2 but you would have to find a real scientist not a railway engineer or anthropologist politician like Figueres.

    We know the climate in Australia has not changed in the last 200 years. A land of drought and flooding rains. That is the climate, not climate change. Or we could blame China and demand reparations. Roast flying pig is delicious.

    253

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually we could just ask the Chinese to move 20% more slowly and we would not need an RET?

      30

    • #
      sophocles

      98% of the CO2 comes into Australia from overseas.

      You can see a significant source on the NASA OCO2 satellite maps which show a “hot spot” of high emissions from the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia. This may be where a cold CO2-rich current rises to the surface. But, as you so rightly point out, it ain’t generated by the people. Or the sheep.

      10

  • #
    LeeHarvey

    I’d like to see the results of a poll asking for the inverse of each of the items from Question 7. Like, when will Climate Change cause less frequent or intense droughts… when will Climate Change cause less frequent or intense storms… so on and so forth.

    Oh yeah… if they asked the questions that way, it’d kinda ruin their narrative.

    151

    • #

      Is climate change inverse to predictions?

      10

      • #
        LeeHarvey

        My point is that the poll focuses on the doom and gloom that has been coming from the pulpit of Gore, Lew, McKibben, et al. for years. If climate change were sold on the basis of more stable weather, increased crop yields, etc., then maybe those who do see a cause for concern might change their tune.

        10

        • #

          Got it Lee
          Will extra atmospheric CO2 enhance crop yeilds?
          Will extra atmospheric CO2 reduce asthma attack severity?
          Will horizontal back radiation reduce extreme weather?
          Will less Artic ice mean less shipping accidents?
          Does fracking reduce the intensity of earthquakes?
          Are there less natural oil seeps now due to human oil extraction?
          Does the steam from coal fired power stations lessen the risk of drought?
          Do native species become extinct less often due to irrigation?
          Does UHI save urban wildlife from the cold?
          Are kids having more water fun park days?
          Are plants less likely to be killed by frost?

          10

  • #
    TedM

    The pollsters are simply too ignorant of the subject to ask intelligent and meaning full questions. Consequently the answers are as meaningless as the questions. And they make the media????

    131

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      G’day Ted,
      I must disagree with you. I think the pollsters are fully aware of what they’re doing, and of the need for ambiguity in their questions to obtain numbers they can use in their propoganda. They know the science is against them, and must use obfuscation to get the votes they need from politicians.

      Cheers,
      Dave B

      201

      • #
        ianl8888


        … the pollsters are fully aware of what they’re doing, and of the need for ambiguity in their questions to obtain numbers they can use in their propoganda

        Yes

        30

      • #
        TedM

        D O C in Oz are you suggesting that there are sneaky people in the media? Sneaky people on the left of politics? perish the thought. :) :):)

        50

  • #
  • #
    David S

    I do think that a poll that uses the term global warming rather than climate change would be more illuminating. Even though skeptics continually point out that the world hasn’t warmed for 15-18 years the general population are still not aware of that. The media continues to blurt out how the last 15-18 years have been the hottest ever. I think that you’d be surprised at how successful the warmist media has still been in misleading the public. I think that people’s beliefs have not changed as much as you think. What has changed is their willingness to sacrifice current living standards for the future. Once people realised how big an impact that renewables and government policy would have on them then they started to discount the need to do anything. It’s like there is a big difference between pledging money for a good cause and actually donating.
    The battle to win the minds of the population is still being dictated by the media and governments and skeptics still have a lot of work to do.

    202

  • #
    2dogs

    Given these results, why exactly are Lomborg’s views considered extreme?

    142

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      2dogs,

      Simply put:

      It’s because he proposes that we use our hard earned ‘green’ to help pull the poor out of poverty today rather than ‘donate’ that money to the wealthy renewables industry investors so they can become even wealthier tomorrow.

      Abe

      40

  • #
    James Bradley

    Never mind the polls – just look at the evidence:

    One day ago:
    Volcano erupts in Galapagos islands thought to pose no danger to unique species.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32882500

    One month ago:
    1 in 6 species face climate change extinction.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32532518

    81

    • #
      Manfred

      More MSM ‘evidence‘ with the required state of mind.

      Galapagos volcano eruption raises fears for islands’ unique species.
      Fears lava from Wolf Volcano may be headed towards habitat of island chain’s pink iguanas

      40

  • #

    These polls are getting like that definition of insanity – asking the same questions over and over and somehow expecting different answers. Newsflash. The climate hysteria train left town long ago.

    Pointman

    214

  • #
    Glen Michel

    There is always hope that the masses will pursue knowledge.As far as climate change awareness is concerned very few on either side understand very little.One will dismiss the orthodoxy with an airily ” climate change is bunkum” ,whilst a convinced climate change adherent will claim that man is the harbinger of global catastrophe.Of course the 4th estate rides all over the 3rd with all its brainwashing.

    70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I have tow mates – one who is a security guard, one who is a concreter.

      Both are very down to earth. They know CAGW is pure BS – I have reasoned and expalined it, now they talk to others about it. The word is spreading amongst blue collar and white collar to a lesser degree.

      The irony is in white collar land, where every form of “tolerance” has tied us up in knots to the point where we “tolerate” every form of human perversion and rank stupidity, but in the blue collar world, common sense reigns.

      Thankfully, Australia has a significant blue collar work force.This is where the stablizing affect will come from. The blue collar work force think most professionals are basically useless and impractical – and in many ways its true – look who are the twits who prop up the CAGW lie….

      143

      • #
        GMac

        The year 2035 The Tru Blue Party(TBP) has won office PM Bob( who funny enough is a, you guessed it),the hotline from Washington rings,it’s President George Bush 3rd,hello Bob,George here,could you do us a favour,it seems we have invaded that many countries that we have run out of enemies,and we have to invade our friends,can you help us out and let us invade you?,Gees mate I thought it was that Chinese fella,they’ve been getting a bit Bolshie of late and threatenin to turn on a blue,so yeah maaate no wucken furries when do you want us,I’m pretty snowed under at the moment maybe I’ll drop by Wensdy or Thersdy arvo next week an I’ll give ya a quote,it’s gunna costa ya, cash under the table an a slab of XB if ya want mates rates.

        00

      • #

        I have also spoken to some students doing holiday period sabbaticals, they tell me they mostly roll their eyes when Professors push the AGW hype. These are environmental science students who are well capable of doing their own fact-checking, but don’t want to rock their final results by arguing about it.

        102

        • #

          Tom, I’ve sometimes wondered about this myself. (my bolding)

          I have also spoken to some students doing holiday period sabbaticals, they tell me they mostly roll their eyes when Professors push the AGW hype. These are environmental science students who are well capable of doing their own fact-checking, but don’t want to rock their final results by arguing about it.

          Come final exam time, or time to hand in papers for assessing, and there’s the questions about CAGW.

          They know all the correct things to write about to ensure that they pass and graduate, but in their heart of hearts, I wonder how of them actually believe it themselves.

          It’s a little like voting. You can say when asked what is expected, and then, in the privacy of the polling station, you vote exactly how you really want to vote, because no one knows but you.

          Witness the recent general election result in the UK, and also a similar thing when Pauline Hanson garners so many votes, when NO ONE says that they will vote for her.

          I would also surmise that telephone opinion polls are similar in nature. (Some people) might say what people expect to hear.

          Tony.

          133

          • #

            Similar to what people, usually in the media, all say about China and how they are making great advances in Climate Change mitigation, when they are (quite literally) powering ahead, virtually in the 180 degree opposite direction.

            Could you imagine China, India, some countries in SE Asia and some in Africa turning up at Paris and just saying outright.

            Naah! You can all go and get stuffed. We’ll do exactly what we want to do.

            They’ll say all the right things, as evidenced when President Obama told a compliant media contingent bowing down before him that China had made this wonderful deal with him about Climate Change, and like a Flathead on a hook, they lapped up every word he said.

            The Chinese got back home, and, in private, said:

            Well that was easy. I can’t believe we got away with it!

            Tony.

            110

            • #
              toorightmate

              Tony,
              I don’t believe they said “I can’t believe we got away with it.”

              In fact they said, “I can’t believe we got a… Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ad infinitum”.

              60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    So according to warmist doctrine then, skeptics must be right because we hold the consensus and the consensus is the thing that creates facts.

    112

  • #
    handjive

    Only 40% of Australians accept the IPCC position that mankind is the main cause of climate change

    And, are the 40% hypocrites?

    Australian website for ‘academics’, The Conversation, home of the 40%, gives insight into the ‘logic’ required:

    Want to help the environment? First fix your work-life balance

    “When it comes to climate change, do you practice what you preach?
    While many of us express strong concern about the issue, there tends to be a yawning gap between this concern and many people’s willingness to actually act on it by doing things like using less power or petrol.”
    . . .
    Comments (read at own risk) highlights the cognitive dissonance required to be one of the 40%.

    51

  • #
    Neville

    This is ridiculous pseudo science junk. We know that the average cooling or warming of the globe every 100 years is either a warming or cooling of 1 C. See Lloyd study of the last 8,000 years.
    But the IPCC states that we have seen 0.85 C since 1900 so obviously we are under the norm for the last 115 years.
    And don’t forget our slight warming comes at the end of a minor ice age.
    Seriously did they expect the world to suffer even colder temps after 1850?

    73

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Keeping in mind that the IPCC value of 0.85 degrees C is based on adjusted and homogenised garbage, one should also keep in mind that the century on century standard deviation in temperature for the entire Holocene is one degree C.

      122

      • #

        Yes, the last 70 years in Broome has been just 0.1C more than the 60 years prior to 1953 for both minimum and maximum, after a station move of just 1.6km. If that’s global warming, I’ll eat my hat.

        61

    • #
      sophocles

      0.85 d C is a bit of a stretch. The raw evidence, properly processed and not homogenised, and adjusted by well known algorithms nor otherwise molested, suggest 0.5 to 0.7 degrees Celsius of average northern warming. As far as a hemispherical average can be computed.

      Remember: that’s just for the Northern Hemisphere. Only.

      It’s more like 0.28 – 0.3 degrees C for the Southern Hemisphere.

      According to some historical evidence, when the Little Ice Age was busy freezing the balls off the brass monkeys, it could have been a warmish time in the SH, and all because of the Polar Oscillation. (Calder 1974, The Weather Machine and the Threat of Ice.“)

      63

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Apparently (for something different) we are all going to die this year.

    http://guardianlv.com/2015/05/global-warming-will-cause-the-hottest-summer-on-record-for-2015/

    Don’t forget to save yourselves by sending Tim Flannery $50.

    Help me Obi Wan Flannery, your my only hope!

    101

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      “Scientists now fear that this event could mark the end of an 18-year global warming “pause.””

      No they don’t – they would be DELIGHTED if the temperatures started to climb as so would the funding!

      62

  • #
    Ruairi

    When the questions being asked aren’t explicit,
    A climate-change poll will elicit,
    A biased result,
    From those they consult,
    Making all their conclusions illicit.

    311

    • #
      Another Ian

      Ruairi

      I’m presuming you’ll be familiar with “The Lure of the Limerick”?

      And I hope you’re working on a publishable collection of these of yours

      With a title maybe like “CAGW-licks”

      50

    • #
      Annie

      I always love your limericks Ruairi but this time you have truly excelled yourself +100 :) Annie.

      10

  • #
    Robdel

    That is a brilliant limerick, Ruairi. You have exceeded yourself.

    70

  • #
  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Questions -
    1 – In your opinion do you have an opinion …. Yes / Uncertain / No
    2 – Would you like us to vote for your opinion …. Yes / Uncertain / No
    3 – uuummmmm, sorry, can’t remember the next question

    Thank you. Have a nice day.

    100

    • #
      el gordo

      Honest poll with a cool bias.

      Q: In the absence of global warming for 18 years, do you believe humans cause global warming.

      81

      • #
        GMac

        Let me get back to you when it starts to get warm again,you know these things are cyclical…oops am I allowed to say that,now where’s that handbook again “CAGW for Dummies” that’ll tell me.
        Gee I hope Paris doesn’t get snowed in this December,it will cause no end of embarrassment if they have to cancel because of the cold!

        71

        • #
          el gordo

          I’m praying to the weather gods that Paris is snowed under in December, the mechanism to bring this off requires El Nino and a negative NAO to cohabit for a few months. No AGW signal, just the background noise of natural variability.

          51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    These surveys are only ever about perception. They are not about the scientific reality of the issue.

    If you understand that man Made Global Warming is a scientific impossibility then the surveys are just a measure of how effective the Pro

    Warmer public relations/advertising campaigns have been and a further insight into the very human need to belong and be part of a group.

    Scientific discipline is a very rare quality and is never displayed in the warmer science which is riddled with politics.

    KK

    113

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      KK:

      the object is to convince the politicians that a substantial number of voters want action (what action? The warmist leaders will inform them).

      Since the average politician’s knowledge of science is that it was taught at the other end of the University, and that is all they know, the result is as set out in The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism by James Delingpole (a good read!).

      If I may paraphrase; A lot of people like to have fruit with their yoghurt. If someone comes along claiming that this should be replaced by dog turd the natural instinct of the political class (mostly lawyers) is to legislate that yoghurt from now on will contain half fruit and half dog turd.

      He doesn’t extend that to the inevitable downturn in yoghurt sales, followed by subsidies for the half dog turd yoghurt producers, followed by legislation to make full dog turd yoghurt compulsory and efforts to feed it to young school kids so they get used to it. All that being very fast fetched.

      Did I mention that it is a good read?

      70

  • #
    pat

    online polls are meaningless.

    27 May: ABC: Jake Sturmer: Climate change: Religious leaders pen letter to Government pushing ambitious post-2020 emissions cuts
    Australia’s most senior Anglican Church official believes politicians may have “misread” the mood for strong action to tackle climate change.
    Anglican Primate Philip Freier is among several religious leaders who have penned a letter to the Government and Opposition urging them to adopt ambitious post-2020 emissions cuts…
    The religious leaders suggest an emissions cut of 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2025 and 80 per cent by 2030…
    “Now plainly religion is a fairly big dividing issue for many people in the world, but we think the issue of carbon emission reduction and climate change is one that transcends those differences and effects all of humanity,” he told the ABC.
    “I think that [our political leaders] might be misreading the interest that Australians have in seeing we do something that is effective and inter-generationally productive.”…
    The letter was organised by Thea Ormerod from the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change…
    “It’s no longer morally neutral to be burning fossil fuels. It is quite destructive and the atmosphere can only take so much more of it.
    “No-one knows — including climate scientists — how much more [the atmosphere] can take.
    “It’s a responsibility for everyone.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/religious-leaders-pen-letter-to-government-over-emissions-cuts/6499358

    27 May: TechCrunch: Bryan Birsic: Goldman Sachs Is Our Best Bet Against Climate Change
    Although it may not be the obvious hero, usually more Vampire Squid than White Knight, Goldman Sachs and its cohorts could be responsible for transitioning the renewables sector from a fragmented and esoteric industry to one of mainstream dominance…
    In comparison, the U.S. Department of Energy’s goal to increase solar energy output from 1 percent to 10 percent by 2025 is modest, and yet would dramatically grow the renewables industry.
    Behind this growth are Goldman Sachs, Citi, JPMorgan and the rest of the institutional investment industry, moving increasing volumes of capital into this market as it matures and sheds risk…
    ***Large amounts of capital are needed to advance renewable energy from fringe to dominance, which only the financial industry can deploy…
    Goldman Sachs is investing $40 billion in renewables by 2021. Citi has committed $100 billion to the facilitation of clean energy by 2025, and Berkshire Hathaway is investing $15 billion into solar and wind projects at Warren Buffet’s personal behest. Within investment banks, new groups have been created to focus on clean energy development and businesses, such as Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing and JPMorgan’s Environmental and Social Risk Management division…
    Early investment in firms such as SolarCity, Enphase and Clean Power Finance accelerated the growth of solar by at least five years, transforming it to be today’s compelling power source…
    ***Today’s products are just the tip of the iceberg. Solutions emerging include more ways to repackage debt such as renewable-backed securitized products or energy mezzanine financing, and financing constructs that generate revenue based on projected savings, such as social impact bonds…
    As Michael Eckhart, Managing Director and Global Head of Finance and Sustainability at Citi said in an interview with Clean Energy Finance Forum, “I think we are 40 years into a 100-year transition to a clean finance economy. The momentum is going in our favor and we are succeeding.”…
    COMMENTERS ARE NOT AMUSED E.G.
    Carlos Herrera: SO TIRED of these advertorials. Seriously, they are just way too biased.
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/26/goldman-sachs-is-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/

    from LinkedIn: Bryan Birsic
    Co-founder & CEO Wunder
    Wunder makes it dead simple for any accredited investor to invest in solar. We source solar projects from our national network of top-tier installer partners, run those projects through a rigorous diligence process, and bring the very best to a growing network of institutional and individual accredited investors…
    Associate Consultant: Bain & Company
    Co-founder/Operational Co-lead of Bain’s Green Team, Bain & Company’s first climate impact, energy efficiency, LEED construction group.

    41

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Religious leaders pen letter to Government pushing ambitious post-2020 emissions cuts”

      If ever there was a group of toe rags looking for a distraction right now, this would be they.

      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/paedophile-priest-gerald-ridsdale-said-abuse-no-secret-royal-commission-reveals/story-fni0fee2-1227370450681

      The gates of their own private hell are now open and about time.

      30

      • #
        GMac

        One thing is for certain those church leaders don’t believe in God.

        Maybe they have forgotten what it is that they are supposed to teach?

        Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.…

        10

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Caveat – this is not about beating people over the head, rather explaining an important point……

          From a Christian point of view, Christainity is following the Bible which is held by Christians as the revealed Word of God.

          Ergo, any group claiming to be Christian, but not following the Bible, cannot logically be Christian. Without an providing an exhaustive essay, suffice to say that comparing the RCC to scripture, the Roman Catholic Church is not christian – in fact the main reason the Protestant Church was established was mainly because people were fed up with the RCC teaching un-biblical things.

          Now how does this relate to climate change? Well simply that two things are at play here :

          (1) Jesus said his kingdom “was no part of this world”. Ergo, meddling in politics is actually an un-christian thing to do. This may come as a surprise to some but it is what it is. This is also one main reason there is a clear separation between church and State, although you could probably successfully argue the new green religion *IS* a new State sponsored religion.

          Churches getting onvolved in the climate change religious system, which is a very secular ( and a pagan belief system to boot ) and is in compatible with Christianity. The Bible clearly says not link up with non-Christian religions for very good reason.

          (2) Yes, humans were appointed ( as per the Bible ) as Stewards over the earth to lok after it. In fact in the OT Adam named all the animals, and animals were clearly of lower value than humans, to God. CAGW indirectly says man is a “pox on the earth” in effect, and animals are suffering.

          CAGW cant be verified scientifically ( which anyone would know if they truly bothered to look ), which means if the truth of the matter is clear, but the churches are poorly informed and/or ignorant, then they are willingly loading the CAGW “gun” to “shoot” themselves with. Foolishness in the extreme.

          42

          • #
            Gary in Erko

            Climate change is caused by religion. The Catholic Church removed a fortnight from the calendar a few hundred years ago. That caused the seasons to slip around the year. Science has proved that the hysteresis for climate alterations due to date adjustments is approximately 450 years +/- something or other. But there’s no need to worry because it’s only been done once.

            11

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Gary:

              The reason for the loss of days was the switch from the Julian Calendar (365.25 days) to the Gregorian Calendar (365.245 days).

              The Julian Calendar gained about three days every four centuries compared to observed equinox times and the seasons. Although Greek astronomers had known, at least since Hipparchus, a century before the Julian reform, that the tropical year was a few minutes shorter than 365.25 days, the Julian calendar did not compensate for this difference, so the Julian Calendar was out by 10 days when Pope Gregory called for the change.

              The change over depended on the local authorities, thus most Catholic countries changed in 1582, but so did Holland and Zeeland. Tuscany didn’t change until 1750. Britain (including the American colonies) changed in 1752 by which time the adjustment took 11 days. There were riots in parts of England about the government ‘stealing’ the 11 days.

              Those areas with the Orthodox Churches often didn’t change until 1918 – 1924, although most Orthodox churches still use the Julian Calendar for calculating Easter etc. You can always start a fight when you ask what is the true date of Easter.

              30

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        SG66:

        I notice that there are 3 Jehovahs Witness Churches for sale in the Adelaide Hills.
        Given their inclinations (see Millerites) have they swallowed the IPCC predictions?

        (Or possibly concentrating their efforts in the largest town as reported?)

        ;

        01

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Original Steve;

          too bizarre to spell it out, but look for A Short History of Time by Holford-Strevens. Sometimes known as The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction.

          10

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Safety coming from Ballarat I could say plenty here but I won’t as hopefully this Royal Commission will expose the evil doers and finally give some justice to truly innocent victims.

        My idea of a private hell for these monsters starts in this life then let whatever take over in the next.

        00

  • #

    I would like to see a poll that asks questions from outside the comfined thinking space.
    EG:
    Which came first, the change or the climate?
    Should the length of day change due to Tsunami be reversed?
    Which causes more climate change, evolution or natural erosion?
    Have humans helped to prevent an ice age?
    Do you think climate change on Mars is worse now or in history?
    Is government rainmaking a benifit to global climate?
    Do you think national parks cause desertification?
    Will ocean spreading cause sea levels to fall?

    61

  • #
    pat

    “controversial” Bjorn Lomborg:

    Wikipedia: Copenhagen Consensus (Bjorn Lomborg)
    In 2009, the Copenhagen Consensus established a Climate Change Project specifically to examine solutions to climate change…
    The panel ranked 15 solutions, of which the top 5 were…
    #3 Research into stratospheric aerosol injection (involving injected sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to reduce sunlight)

    scientist published by Nature Climate Change says:

    26 May: ABC: The World Today: Aerosols blasted into atmosphere could save coral reefs from climate change effects, scientist says
    It is an idea which scientists have previously dismissed as “irrational and irresponsible”, but University of Queensland professor Peter Mumby said shooting sulphur dioxide into the sky was an option that should be considered if political agreements failed to stop global warming.
    Scientists call it stratospheric aerosol-based solar radiation management — using aerosols to scatter sunlight high above the Earth…
    Professor Mumby said rising sea temperatures meant annual coral bleaching effects were expected by midway through this century.
    “The consequences to reefs are pretty dire.”…
    Professor Mumby is urging government to take as strong action as possible with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change…
    The chief executive of the Climate Institute, John Connor, said the use of aerosols would be risky.
    “There are whole hosts of question marks about this technology and in particular its impact on weather systems worldwide,” Mr Connor said.
    ***”The climate is a complicated system and we play with it at our peril.”
    Professor Mumby’s research is a collaboration with researchers in the UK and the US.
    The results have been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/aerosol-blasting-proposed-to-save-reefs-from-climate-change/6498052

    Reef to avoid in-danger tag
    The Australian-9 hours ago
    The World Heritage Committee is preparing to pull back from declaring the Great Barrier Reef “in danger” …Greenpeace was exposed last week by federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt for using images of coral reefs damaged by typhoons in The Philippines as part of its Great Barrier Reef campaign…

    62

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Mumby said shooting sulphur dioxide into the sky was an option that should be considered if political agreements failed to stop global warming.’

      Someone should tell him its delusional, no wonder the climate science community is in tatters. Good to see Greg Hunt get off his backside for a change, too little too late.

      30

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      Sulphur dioxide causes degradation in cement. Sulphur Attack in Concrete and Mortar. Lomborg should stick to economics and stay clear of science and engineering.

      Abe

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    Of course the questions are loaded with prejudice

    Reinforcement: Climate change is caused by xxx
    Unreasonable denial: There is no such thing as Climate Change.

    Questions not asked.

    Basically, anything to do with CO2, the entire point of Climate Change. After all, there are many reasons climates could change. Water circulation, irrigation, deforestation, dams, reduced water supply, vegetation, species change, silting of rivers, volcanic activity, floods, crops, wind patterns, long term effects like El Nino, La Nina, monsoon failure, statistical variation,..

    The thing never mentioned and the one thing at issue is the connection with CO2 and the basic proposition that CO2 and CO2 alone is responsible for all Climate Changes.

    So a few more not asked
    1. Are you personally aware of any climate change?
    2. Is where you live warmer or cooler, over a period of years?
    3. Do you believe any climate change is due mainly to CO2?
    4. Is every weather event, cyclones, bushfires, drought, flood, rainstorm a sign of long term climate change caused by CO2?
    5. Do you believe the Climate Change issue is manipulation?
    6. Do you think the UN is trying to get cash and political power from Western and only Western countries by demonizing manufacturing, oil, gas and coal and cars and planes?
    7. Do you think there is group trying to blame a CO2 increase over the last hundred years for every single weather event today?
    8. Do you think 30,000 people flying to Paris to discuss reducing carbon emissions is consistent?
    10. Is Climate Change a real issue for mankind?
    11. Will a carbon tax fix the climate?
    12. Do you believe the Oregon petition signed by 32,000 scientists who deny CO2 driven Climate Change was a fake?

    102

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      -
      13. Where’s question 9. It’s the only one I know the answer for.

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        That’s the problem with numbering things and changing your mind.
        Or self censored. Something about Sir Professor Dr. Tim Flannery, B.A.(English), M.Sc., Ph.D, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and Australian of the Year and his professional opinion on his speciality, a very dead prehistoric wombat and what it signified technically for Climate Change.

        11

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable!

    26 May: Dallas Morning News: Tod Robberson: As weather bounces between record extremes, what say the climate-change deniers?
    The streets of Houston now more closely resemble Venice than America’s fourth-largest urban center. The northeast is emerging from a winter of relentless, record snow storms. Out west, crispy critters and parched hillsides now stand as emblems of a record drought that has reached crisis proportions. In India, 1,100 people are dead because of a record heat wave as the Indian subcontinent endures daytime temperatures of 118 degrees.
    With Dallas drenched in unseasonably heavy rains over the Memorial Day weekend, I was stuck indoors and noticed that the Davis Guggenheim documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was playing on cable. Having never watched the film and been a longtime skeptic of former Vice President Al Gore’s hyperbole, I decided to watch the documentary from start to finish.
    Considering that the film was released in 2006, far ahead of many of the climate extremes this nation has witnessed in recent years, ***it’s amazing how accurate many of Gore’s predictions have turned out to be. And the fact that I wrote the previous sentence probably serves as an open invitation for the climate-change deniers to weigh in, which is why we leave lots of space below for comments. Despite its vociferous critics, An Inconvenient Truth, has stood the test of time. The deniers’ loud and repeated denials have not. Gore predicted that sea levels would rise, glaciers would disappear and ice shelves would recede into melted fresh water at both poles. Deny it if you like, but it is occurring, and it is measurable and verifiable…
    COMMENT by Ted Quidgmann: Hey Tod, I just got chastised recently on DMN (Dallas Morning News) for pointing out that the climate “experts” had predicted as recently as February 2015 that the Texas drought would persist for years, and now we’re awash in water…
    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/as-weather-bounces-between-record-extremes-what-say-the-climate-change-deniers.html/

    41

  • #
    pat

    deceptive graph attempts to validate the headline:

    26 May: Bloomberg: Naureen Malik: Solar as Fastest Growing U.S. Power Source Rivals Shale Boom
    Move over shale. The sun is now the fastest growing source of U.S. electricity.
    Solar power capacity in the U.S. has jumped 20-fold since 2008 as companies including Apple Inc. use it to reduce their carbon footprint. Rooftop panels are sprouting on homes from suburban New York to Phoenix, driven by suppliers such as SolarCity Corp. and NRG Energy Inc.
    Giant farms of photovoltaic panels, including Warren Buffett’s Topaz array in California, are changing power flows in the electrical grid, challenging hydro and conventional generators and creating negative prices on sunny days…
    Solar capacity surged 30 percent in 2014 to more than 20 gigawatts and will more than double by the end of 2016, according to the Washington-based Solar Energy Industries Association. That’s enough to power 7.6 million U.S. homes, up from 360,000 in 2009…
    ***Even with the rapid growth, solar still accounts for less than 1 percent of total U.S. power production, behind coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and hydroelectric, according to the government’s Energy Information Administration. Because output suffers on cloudy or hazy days, grid operators have to keep conventional plants on standby***…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-fastest-growing-u-s-power-source-rivals-shale-boom

    26 May: WaPo: Amber Phillips: Obama’s legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy
    Climate Change
    Obama told U.S. Coast Guard cadets last week that failing to act on climate change will “set a course for disaster.” At the same time, the Supreme Court is debating whether his method of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions is even constitutional.
    The Supreme Court heard arguments in March on whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s crackdown on coal- and fire-powered plants’ mercury emissions failed to consider undue costs on the power plants.
    The justices are expected to share their decision in June. But it is expected to be just an early challenge to the president’s executive climate change initiatives, say environmental watchers…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/26/obama-courts/

    22

  • #
    It doesn't add up...

    It might be interesting to conduct a poll where the questions were designed to dig out some other truths. Obviously, at one extreme you could ask questions like:

    1) Do you have confidence that scientists present data on climate fairly?
    2) Have you heard of Climategate?
    3) Do you think that climate science is driven by a political agenda?
    4) Do you think that politicians have a good understanding of science? (4a) name three politicians with a good science understanding)
    5) Do you think that warmer winters lead to more deaths?
    6) Have you heard of the greening of the Sahara?
    7) Have you heard any explanations as to why global temperatures have not continued on the same rising trend over the past 15 years?
    8) Do you think we spend too little/about right/too much on climate science?
    9) Rank the following sources of energy in terms of cost (lowest to highest) oil/coal/natural gas/solar panels/wind power/hydro/nuclear (rotate order randomly)
    10) Rank the sources of energy in terms of reliability.
    11) What is the global percentage share of CO2 emissions of a) Australia b)UK c) USA d) China

    When publishing the results, give the right answers to questions where they are known – and show the extent of the bias in public perception.

    82

  • #
    pat

    technocracy rising:

    26 May: The Week Mag: James Poulos: Silicon Valley could save the world from climate change. But we don’t want them to
    Silicon Valley could save the planet. All they need to do is combine their entrepreneurial brilliance with an enormous infusion of cash, and, more importantly, have our society grant them the cultural permission to lead us to a green future…
    Why not trust our technologists to actually tackle the difficulties our scientists warn us about? Why do we put our faith in government not even to compel us to do great things, but to stop us from doing little things that add up, such as emit carbon?…
    Why don’t we turn Washington into the biggest venture capitalist in the world, and hand Silicon Valley a blank check marked “climate”? Because it makes them masters of the universe. Yes, it’s all about our fear again…
    Unless we get over that resentful queasiness about the new ruling techno-class we’re winding up with anyway, we’ll just keep choking on climate.
    http://theweek.com/articles/556627/silicon-valley-could-save-world-from-climate-change-but-dont-want

    when the CAGW story changes almost daily, what would they be saving us from?

    26 May: RTCC: Tim Radford: Tropical storms get fiercer with climate change – study
    Typhoons and hurricanes are getting less frequent with human-caused global warming but more intense, study confirms
    Tropical storms are becoming more violent and less frequent as global temperatures rise, US and Korean researchers have found.The conclusion is not new: other teams have already proposed that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could drive tropical cyclones to higher latitudes and that the most destructive hurricanes could happen increasingly often…
    Nam-Young Kang, who directs South Korea’s National Typhoon Center, and James Eisner, a geographer at Florida State University, set about a study of weather data and hurricane, cyclone and typhoon records between 1984 and 2012 to see if they could identify a pattern of change…
    They report in Nature Climate Change that they found what they were looking for: a pattern… http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/26/tropical-storms-get-fiercer-with-climate-change-study/

    32

  • #
    GMac

    Is that Koala one of those that has to be culled because the scientists tell us it has to happen because the greedy little buggers have stripped the Otway’s forests of gum leaves?

    40

  • #

    How many years ago did IPSOS stop, if at all, mistreating kittens, assuming it did mistreat kittens? And if IPSOS did rob the threepences from orphans’ Christmas puddings, how long ago did it desist, if at all, from this behaviour?

    21

    • #
      GMac

      I haven’t seen a thruppence in a Christmas pud since I was a kid,the rotten sods,so it was them eh?

      10

      • #
        Retired now

        Mum used to run her threepences and the odd sixpence under the tap and then dried them before putting them in the pudding in our plate. Other parents used to boil them for ten minutes.

        Dad used to get a sixpence and a threepence. Us children would get one threepence and just to show that they were already in the pudding when it was cooked (who was she kidding, we saw them being washed) one of us children would get two threepences. I always wondered the point of it all – why not just give us the cash by our plate?

        10

        • #
          Yonniestone

          “why not just give us the cash by our plate?” that’d be boring and take away the fun of a potential choking hazard.

          30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    what to say?

    27 May: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Labor calls Greg Combet back to help develop emissions trading scheme
    Former climate change minister employed part time as party decides how to implement Bill Shorten’s pledge to reintroduce an ETS
    Combet has been employed part time by Labor’s national secretariat to help the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, as the party debates policy ahead of its July national conference and the next election, due in 2016.
    Labor has yet to make basic decisions about how to implement Shorten’s pledge that it will continue to advocate an emissions trading scheme.
    Most are envisaging a new cap-and-trade scheme broadly similar to the one introduced during the last parliament, and repealed by the Abbott government…
    And others are concerned at the political and market instability that would flow from Labor putting up another ETS if it could not be passed into law, or if the Coalition again pledged to repeal it. They are determined Labor should have a credible means to achieve Australia’s emissions reductions, but are contemplating a two-stage policy, with immediate action on a stronger renewable energy target, environmental regulation and a strengthening of the existing laws, with an emissions trading scheme as a longer term policy once it has broader support…
    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/27/labor-calls-greg-combet-back-to-help-develop-emissions-trading-scheme

    11

  • #
    pat

    posted earlier from Bloomberg:

    “Solar power capacity in the U.S. has jumped 20-fold since 2008 as companies including Apple Inc. use it to reduce their carbon footprint”

    PICS: 27 May: Engadget: Richard Lawler: Fire breaks out at Apple facility in Arizona
    An Apple building in Arizona is on fire, and a live stream from local news station ABC 15 shows crews on site, as well as a burning roof full of scorched solar panels. Based on the location, it appears to be the facility Apple purchased from sapphire maker GT Advanced, with an eye towards turning it into a command center for the company’s worldwide data networks…
    According to the Superstition Fire and Medical District (yes, it’s real) right now it appears that solar panels caught fire on the roof…
    http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/26/apple-arizona-fire/

    27 May: BusinessInsider: Matt Weinberger: A huge Apple building in Mesa, Arizona was just on fire
    The fire was limited to solar panels above the building, and never actually got inside, according to that report. As many as 50 people had to be evacuated, but nobody was hurt. 100 firefighters are on the scene, according to a tweet by ABC15 anchor Justin Pazera…
    The solar panels on the building were part of a deal Apple had with the local community to provide power to 14,000 local homes…
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a-huge-apple-building-in-mesa-arizona-was-on-fire-2015-5

    31

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax chose to carry this Bloomberg report, whose only reference to solar is in the final sentence and then it is not related to the fire:

    28 May: Bloomberg: Tim Higgins: Fire Damages Apple’s Former Sapphire-Screen Factory in Arizona
    The cause of the fire is under investigation…
    Before Apple acquired the facility in 2013, it was part of First Solar Inc.’s failed plans to build solar panels there.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/fire-damages-apple-s-former-sapphire-screen-factory-in-arizona

    8 May: WNYT: Solar panels pose challenge in Latham fire
    When a fire erupted Friday in the attic of a medical building on Route 9, and firefighters needed to ventilate the roof, there was solar paneling that got in the way.
    When flames began shooting through the roof of this small medical building Friday morning, the dentist, the chiropractor, and their patients inside were unaware of the danger. It was a passing motorist who stopped, ran inside, and got everyone out.
    “Upon arrival the first units found fire on the roof in the vicinity of the solar panels. It extended from the roof into the attic which was put out by the crews,” explained Thomas Bergin, Colonie Incident Commander.
    The fire itself was small, but the fire fight became a big deal because for the first time Colonie firefighters, who needed access to the roof, found solar panels blocking the way…
    “We should know before we get there that there is, there are panels,” noted Sr. Invest. Joe Bisognano of the Colonie Fire Department.
    Bisognano says more and more commercial and residential buildings in the town are going green, and standard procedure is for firefighters to know ahead of time what they’re likely to encounter when they get to a fire scene.
    “I think we’re trying to find out what the best way to go about it is so that when we do implement something it’s done right and it’s fair for the people that install these and it’s still safe for the firefighters,” he reasoned.
    In Burlington County, New Jersey, a giant food warehouse caught fire in September 2013. There were 7,000 solar panels that were installed on the roof that were cited by fire officials for causing access problem.
    “The problem we have with this fire is the whole roof has solar panels on it so we can’t get on it because they’re energized,” explained Chief Ron Holt of the Delanco Fire Department back when that fire happened.
    In other words, when firefighters are up on the roof worrying about raging flames and thick smoke, they might also need to worry about stepping on an energized solar panel…
    In other parts of the country, there’s been talk about leaving large sections solar rooftops free of solar panels in case of fire.
    Some municipalities are considering legislation that would require emblems on buildings, notifying firefighters that solar panels are present.
    http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s3790662.shtml

    21

  • #
    pat

    26 May: e360 Yale Uni: Cheryl Katz: Surge in Renewables Remakes California’s Energy Landscape
    Last year, California became the first state to get more than 5 percent of its electricity from the sun…
    The push toward renewables has bumped up electricity prices — Californians pay around 14 cents per kilowatt hour across all sectors, compared to a little over 10 cents nationwide, according to 2015 figures from the U.S. Energy Information Agency…
    Large-scale solar plants, particularly those using solar thermal technology, are losing appeal to investors as photovoltaic panel prices plunge. And utilities, having largely reached their current renewable procurement targets, have few new projects in the pipeline. What’s more, the federal solar investment tax credit program for new utility projects drops from 30 percent to 10 percent after 2016, and ends completely for individuals…
    In the past few months, both Apple and Google have announced they are developing their own grid-scale renewable energy projects. Apple is partnering with ***FirstSolar to build a 280-megawatt solar farm not far from its Silicon Valley headquarters…
    Earlier this month, standing on a closed landfill near San Francisco Bay slated to sport 19,000 solar panels by next year, U.S. EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said she hopes a pioneering Regional Renewable Energy Procurement arrangement by a group of public agencies will become a national model. Under that initiative, solar panels will be installed at 186 sites such as fire stations (LOL) etc…
    California’s energy transition still faces some daunting obstacles. A massive influx of new energy threatens to overwhelm the current transmission system. The sporadic nature of wind and solar poses a special challenge. In addition, the remote location of many new energy producers means the state will have to extend electrical wires…
    To address these problems and achieve California’s goals for a new energy future, CAISO envisions fleets of private and mass-transit electric vehicles that serve as batteries on wheels — plugging in and soaking up excess current when the load gets too high, and feeding it back into the grid through special charging stations when supply drops. The plan also calls for retrofitting the state’s sluggish old conventional power plants or building new ones that can ramp up production quickly when the sun sets or the wind dies, then stop when these sources become active…
    Reaching the state’s aggressive new energy target likely will raise costs…
    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/surge_in_renewables_remakes_californias_energy_landscape/2879/

    ***First Solar not doing so well. this was all over the business press today:

    26 May: Marketwatch: Claudia Assis: First Solar shares down 6% after downgrade
    Shares of First Solar Inc. fell 6.2% on Tuesday as the stock got a downgrade from analysts at RBC Capital Market. “We believe First Solar earnings power is significantly lower than consensus and previous guidance,” the analysts said in downgrading the shares to underperform. The RBC analysts also lowered their price target on the stock to $34 a share from $54 a share…
    RBC said. “Given the company’s high exposure to utility-scale projects and the long lead-time and development cycle of those projects, we do not see upside surprise to our project revenue estimate.”
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/first-solar-shares-down-6-after-downgrade-2015-05-26

    20

    • #

      Don’t some of you actually wonder about this? (my bolding)

      The push toward renewables has bumped up electricity pricesCalifornians pay around 14 cents per kilowatt hour across all sectors, compared to a little over 10 cents nationwide, according to 2015 figures from the U.S. Energy Information Agency…

      Have a look at the most recent cost for electricity by State across the U.S. and this is end 2014.

      So, where you here in Australia pay upwards of 30 and 35 cents per KWH for retail electricity, look at this chart of retail costs by State for the U.S.

      Note some States are actually up around close to the high teens cents per KWH, those, umm, ‘Blue’ States in the North East, where a lot of their power is imported from Sates where the power is actually generated.

      Note some are as low as under 10 cents per KWH with the cheapest at under 9 cents per KWH, and even the average is just on 12 cents per KWH, about a third of what we pay here in Australia.

      Retail cost of electricity in the U.S.

      Tony.

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Tony,

        For what it’s worth, living in California I see the rise in the cost of almost everything. And one of the factors that pushes up the price of a kWh is simply the refusal of state and local agencies to allow construction of new generating capacity to keep up with the demand. The utilities are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and must charge what the CPUC authorizes. Now you would think the CPUC would be in the consumer’s pocket. After all, it was created to protect the consumer from the utilities which are allowed to operate as sole providers (monopolies). But they’re not in the consumer’s pocket at all. So that being the case, you would expect them to be in the utilities’ pocket. But that isn’t true either. The CPUC operates on its own agenda that favors social justice, not the bill paying public or the utilities. These are unelected bureaucrats who can — and do — reach into everyone’s pocket at will. That they have been as retrained as they have is quite amazing, considering their almost complete, unfettered unaccountability. A symbiotic relationship has developed over the years that benefits a few at the expense of the many, is inefficient at providing that benefit, a benefit not authorized by the people of California but by the legislature. And I think if Californians really understood what’s happening to them they would explode in a rage like has never before been seen.

        To be sure renewables have diverted money from the building more conventional capacity in the case of electricity. But it’s not the major driver, not in my opinion as an observer of what’s going on. We’re being directly regulated nearly to the point of not handling the peak demand at all.

        In the meantime, with capacity limited the CPUC can and does impose a tiered pricing structure aimed at reducing usage at peak demand time. There’s nothing friendly to the consumer in that either. I could mention roving blackouts too. We haven’t had one yet but it’s coming closer and closer. At the hottest time of day my refrigerator will be without power for an hour, minimum and I’ll have no A/C. And then there’s the seasonal baseline allowance that varies by season. I’m paying for something better than this.

        What privately owned corporation could simply say, we need capital for improvements to our infrastructure and then raise prices to get what they need? It wouldn’t work. Yet Edison can say to the CPUC, we need capital for this or that and the CPUC will grant a rate increase. Edison is a privately owned company and the stock holders are virtually guaranteed a certain ROI by the CPUC. Were they any other company they would need to go to their stock holders and ask for authority to borrow the money, then they could do what’s needed. The maintenance of their equipment, manufacturing facilities, research, everything, would not be something they could pass on the the end consumer directly, dollar for dollar. Competition prevents that. But Edison can and does do that. How do we expect to have both adequate power at peak demand and honest competitive pricing under such circumstances?

        I was once a fan of the regulated monopoly utility model that we’ve had for so long. But over time I’ve changed my mind. I look at nearby Los Angeles which operates its own Department of Water and Power and the price of a kWh there is even higher because Los Angeles isn’t subject to CPUC regulation. The city counsel simply milks the DWP for money to run the city’s other programs. It’s nuts. The lack of real competition is killing us. At least now there is some real competition getting started for telephone service and that’s helping. But there’s nowhere I can go to get a cheaper kWh of electricity.

        30

  • #
    Tim

    The surveys seem to have replaced the original ‘Global Warming’ meme with ‘Climate Change’ A rubbery,all-encompassing and totally misleading phrase. No doubt carefully crafted by an army of PR wallas and thoroughly tested when the warming was becoming visibly non existent and easily measured.

    Let’s get back to ‘Global Warming’ and hold them to it.

    101

    • #
      TdeF

      In fact take them back to CO2 and warming. You hear words like pollution and big polluters. People are against pollution. So then segway to carbon pollution without explanation. This is old, natural plant matter. Man is making nothing new. It is not pollution. We are all made from CO2, as is all life on earth.

      The only argument ever was that CO2 was also a greenhouse gas and heating the planet rapidly. Firstly there has been no measured global warming in twenty years. Then there is no hot spot, so it is agreed there is no knock on warming from water vapour and no expected significant warming effect from CO2.

      If CO2 cannot produce warming, how does it produce ‘Climate Change’.

      There is talk of temperature increases and sea rises, without any logical connection at all. There is even talk of a pause and a hiatus as if a temperature rise has stopped temporarily, without any reason to use these terms or any reason to say warming is occurring. Even ‘natural variation’ is being used, an explanation which was self evidently rejected in the first place.

      So we have no warming, no reason to warm, no mechanism for warming but Climate Change. You cannot refute what is no longer even being said.

      Now Climate Change is happening because the IPCC says it is. Otherwise you would not have a UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, would you?

      Close the IPCC. It has always been the problem and has cost the world trillions better spent on real problems. Even economists like Lomborg are saying so, which is why they have to be silenced.

      21

  • #
    handjive

    order
    [awr-der]

    noun
    1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.

    2. a command of a court or judge.

    3. a command or notice issued by a military organization or a military commander to troops, sailors, etc.

    4. the disposition of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence:
    The names were listed in alphabetical order.

    5. a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement:
    You must try to give order to your life.

    6. formal disposition or array:
    the order of the troops.

    7.proper, satisfactory, or working condition.

    verb (used with object)

    37. to give an order, direction, or command to:
    The infantry divisions were ordered to advance.

    38. to direct or command to go or come as specified:
    to order a person out of one’s house.

    39. to prescribe:
    The doctor ordered rest for the patient.

    40. to direct to be made, supplied, or furnished:
    to order a copy of a book.

    41.to regulate, conduct, or manage:
    to order one’s life for greater leisure.

    42. to arrange methodically or suitably:
    to order chessmen for a game.
    ~ ~ ~
    France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius said agreeing to limit a rise in world temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average would signify success and “the starting point for a new order“. (SMH)
    . . .
    Anyone care to speculate what he means by ‘new order’?

    31

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I care to speculate.

      A new order is a new way of thinking (very much like post-normal science).
      It’s saying “your old way of thinking is old, we have a bright new future in mind”.

      10

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    A combination of the “noun” definitions, skilfully omitting the bits from which ordinary people would derive a single scrap of benefit.

    Laurent Fabius has been around for so long…. He was French prime minister for a while under Mitterrand, thirty years ago. I think he is living proof that recycling doesn’t actually work.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    At long last Hansen admits that sea levels were 6 to 8 metres higher than today during the previous Eemian interglacial.
    Yet only a few 100,000 primitive humans existed at that time so they can’t blame SUVs, planes, CF power stations or the excessive co2 footprints of modern left wing elites etc.
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/2-deg-c-global-warming-limit-in-the-news-recent-comments-by-james-hansen-godfather-of-climate-alarmism/#more-9108

    40

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Here in Britain, we have been experiencing an orgy of earthquakes: two (count ‘em!). One was a bone crushing 4.2, in Kent, while the other was a killer 3.0, in Wales:

    The British Geological Survey (BGS) said it was recorded at 4.41pm on Tuesday and struck off the coast about four miles (6km) below the surface.

    Eco-loons are determined to exploit any tremor, however trivial, to prevent fracking, so they will exaggerate the significance of even the tiniest tremors to that effect. It’s not for nothing that Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian all have Welsh connotations. Wales hasn’t suddenly become tectonically unstable and any suggestion otherwise is blatant scare-mongering.

    That hasn’t stopped the British Geological Survey from second-guessing its own data:

    Experts at the BGS urged people who felt the earthquake to get in touch in order to establish the exact location and strength of the tremor.

    Isn’t that what seismologists are supposed to work out for themselves? Didn’t we see that they had already done that?

    I shall probably be accused of inconsistency here. I am sceptical about temperature readings that are endlessly “adjusted”, ignoring the thermometers, along with people’s experiences, while, in this instance, I regard the scientific data as more secure and the anecdotal stuff as completely pointless, but what’s wrong with that? Well, seriously, who can objectively judge the scale of a minor tremor, such as a 3.0? I don’t believe there is any objective way to do that, without using the basic methods of measurement. If those don’t work, perhaps the scientists should tell us. This looks like a way to create a scare-story out of nothing.

    20

  • #
    ROM

    There are mostly quite negative comments running right through this blog discussion on the structure and claimed results of the IPSOS Climate change Report.
    But perhaps there is another way of looking at those survey figures.

    When I see the forces, forces that have been in full play by the alarmists for over a quarter of as century now, the propaganda, the political pressure, the constant overwhelming media pressure promoting ad infinitum, the anthropogenic created climate change that is “predicted” for all of those 25 plus years to be potentially and overwhelmingly disastrous ranging across just about every possible aspect from significant right down to infinitesimal in practical effect which is most of them, I am actually quite surprised by that range of numbers of the citizenry that are skeptical to a greater or lesser degree in that climate change survey.

    What we don’t ever know in a survey on such a controversial subject is the number of people who were rung by the surveyors and when told it was about “climate change” either just hung up or stated loudly that it was all a big heap of total BS and then hung up.
    Their input certainly won’t be included in a survey seeking a specific answer to the questions as this one was attempting to do.
    The believers of course I would think would be fully co-operative as it allowed them yet another chance to promote their warped and bitter ideology.

    However all that has been covered previously.

    What has been of increasing concern to myself, not that I can do anything about it, is the increasing urbanisation of Australia and the consequent almost complete loss of reality allied by an increasingly citified ignorance of rural matters which is being increasingly exploited by the lying greenpeace, PETA and numerous other enviromental NGO’s who deliberately exploit the ignorance of the urbanites about rural and farming matters to further their own agendas and power and influence pedalling activities .

    Rural matters such food production and farming, live stock handling and most particularly in this case, the total divorcement between the urban population’s real time actual weather and climate experiences out away from the very sheltered, heated, cooled, rain protected, wind reduction from wall to wall building surrounds, sealed roads so no boggy dirt or gravel tracks, constant reliable power, supermarkets around the corner for immediate food requirements and etc amongst the vast bulk of the populace.

    And this increasing ignorance of life, of weather as experienced out in the back blocks and every day as well and most particularly of the Climate in all it’s immense variations and subtleties, of Farming and food production, of rural and small town living standards and the frequent deprivations involved compared to the facilities of the big urban centres, disease incidence and access to the medical system or lack of and many more items is due entirely to Australia being arguably one of the most urbanised developed nations on earth, surprising as that seems with all our vast and nearly empty continent around us.

    For a few figures to show the increasing disconnect between the understanding and comprehending of Nature and everything Natural that is on offer from the utterly benign to the devastating by the non urbanised Australia and the disconnect and increasing lack of understanding of what Nature and natural forces are and how the increasing urbanisation of Australia is fast losing that couple of millions of years adaption and understanding of our species interactions and reactions to those natural phenomena of weather and climate, of storms, of cold , heat, food shortages, food surpluses and etc, all created and part of the real Nature since time immemorial.

    Given the urbanisation figure below and the consequent naivety and probable ignorance of climate realities when never having ever experienced Weather and Climate for an extended period in rural Australia outside of the highly protected and closed urban environment it is quite remarkable that there are so many in our society who no longer subscribe to or have already moved from a belief in catastrophic climate change to a far more nuanced view and / or to outright skepticsm even though they might not yet be mentally conditioned to come out publicly and be prepared to suffer some severe personal attacks for their changing understandings and beliefs.
    All of which was evident from the numbers in that survey.

    The Australian citizenry are continuing that slow but accelerating migration towards skepticsm despite the immense array of very generously funded ethical and morality free, climate catastrophe propagandizing NGO’s, their media running dogs, the numerous opportunistic politicals, warmist infested leftist bureaucracies and the whole gamut of the increasingly despised world of the far left, red radical academia.

    How urbanised is Australia’s population?

    An urbanisation view does away with any reference to the capital city and looks just at the difference between urban and rural locations. The ABS loosely defines an urban area as a centre with a population of at least 1,000, and a population density at least 200 people per square kilometre contiguous with this centre. This is a very brief paraphrasing of the main criteria which are applied to the smallest geographic units from the Census (SA1s in 2011) to define cities and towns by the extent of their spread. These have been used for nearly 50 years and are called the “Linge Criteria”. They are quite involved but that’s enough detail for this forum!

    Census data is output on this basis in a classification called “Section of State”. By this measure, you can have rural areas (eg. residential estates with population on 5 acre blocks) quite close to major cities, while a small country town in the outback would be part of the urban population if the built up area contained more than 1000 people. Less than 1,000 people in a centre and it’s a “Locality” which is generally classified as rural for these purposes.

    >If you were in any doubt that Australia is a fundamentally urban country – here is the figure to remember.
    As of the 2011 Census, 88.9% of the population lived in urban Australia – the built up areas of towns and cities of more than 1,000 people.
    So that’s only about 1 in 10 rural and small town dwellers.

    Here are the figures by state:

    NSW ; ————-90.1%
    Victoria ————90.5%
    Queensland ——86.9%
    SA——————-88.1%
    WA——————89.4%
    Tasmania ——–73.8%
    NT——————71.6%
    ACT—————99.5%

    [This quote seems applicable to the urbanisation of the ACT; "Over fed, over paid, over sexed and over here" as was said about the American troops during WW2 ]

    AUSTRALIA urbanisation percentage ; 88.9%

    30

  • #
    Timboss

    I wonder what percentage believe antarctic volcanoes are causing the warming?

    21

  • #
    Carbon500

    The IPCC was formed in 1988. That’s 27 years ago. A whole of generation of school children has been raised with all the dangerous man-made global warming garbage since then, and I wonder how many think that the storms, heatwaves and so on we normally experience as the planet goes about its business have been caused by mankind, and never existed before the slight increase in the concentration of the trace gas we’ve all heard so much about?
    Bizarre idea, but I wonder?
    In my view, it’s essential that they read meteorological historical data and talk to their parents and grandparents.
    I’ve challenged many a ‘warmist’ to produce the figures to show that we’re heading for doomsday.
    Despite plenty of sneering arrogant bluster from quite a few, not one, I repeat, not a single one has actually produced any data of their own to argue from. Apparently I should ‘trust the science’!
    When I first encountered this type of personality, I was somewhat taken aback, having been used to reasoned and polite scientific discussions when talking face to face with people and in the way published papers are written.
    Now? Bring ‘em on!

    30

  • #
    Phil Ford

    How the BBC works: Sending ice to Antarctica
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32802588

    The BBC never stops pushing the CAGW meme. That news story is so full of howlers it simply beggars belief.

    30

    • #
      Carbon500

      Phil Ford: Yes, another piece of shoddily researched ‘news’ – they say:
      At 4,350m the Col du Dome sits just below the summit of Mont Blanc. Covered in snow, it appears to be a permanent, frozen fixture in the Alps – but looks can be deceptive. “In 1994 we measured the temperature inside the glacier and in 2005 we went to the same place and we saw a warming of 1.5C,’ says Jerome Chappellaz, of the French National Centre for Scientific Research which is involved in creating a new ice store in the Antarctic. When it comes to non-polar glaciers, because of global warming, a lot of them are going to disappear this century”.
      They should have looked a lot harder at Alpine history. Between 2003 and 2010, numerous archaeological finds were recovered from a melting ice patch in the Schnidejoch pass in the Bernese Alps (Cantons of Berne and Valais, Switzerland). These finds date from the Neolithic period, the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age, Roman times, and the Middle Ages, spanning a period of 6000 years. The Schnidejoch pass, at an altitude of 2756 m above sea level, is in the Wildhorn region of the western Bernese Alps. It has yielded some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic human activity at high altitude in the Alps. The abundant assemblage of finds contains a number of unique artifacts, mainly from organic materials like leather, wood, bark, and fibers. The site clearly proves access to high-mountain areas as early as the 5th millennium BC, and the chronological distribution of the finds indicates that the Schnidejoch pass was used mainly during periods when glaciers were retreating.
      Clear evidence of glacial advance and retreat over the centuries, yet the BBC chooses to ignore it – or more likely, hasn’t bothered to do its research properly – as always. Nor it seems have some climate ‘experts’.

      20

  • #
    Tom O

    Does man affect the climate? Yes, through land use, local climate is changed. Does man affect global climate? If he affects local climate, it affects the global climate.

    Can man’s affect on climate be successfully “modeled?” To model man’s affect on the climate, you first have to understand climate, and man does not understand climate and what makes it change. Until man actually can complete state what natural drivers in the climate truly do, man can not evaluate his own contribution to change. Period. You can model what you know, you can only simulate what you think you know, and that isn’t the same thing as knowing, thus man cannot model the climate. He can create a program like SimCity and call it SimClimate, if he wants, but the reality is, it’s a simulation, not a model.

    10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Nicely put Tom and I would say the best climate models are not quite as good at simulating the global climate as Sim City was at simulating a city. Which is quite a compliment really.

      10

  • #
    richard

    “But what is happening (scientifically at least) is “an increase in farming production“,

    “That’s why I was surprised to find what appears to be good news lurking in global data (from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO 2014) while I was doing research for a chapter in an upcoming book (Agricultural Resilience: Perspectives from Ecology and Economics – coming from Cambridge University Press later this year)

    I found that, while the global food supply per person has increased over the last 15 years, we have simultaneously decreased the total amount of land we’re using to produce it”

    and feeding a world population growing at 1.4 million per week.

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/can-we-grow-more-food-on-less-land

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Off topic. Doing the rounds. Concerned, worried climate scientists.

    Poor worried old Tim. You just feel like sending money to Tim or a job offer as head of the IPCC. If an Indian Railway engineer can travel 350,000km a year on first class freebies, why not Tim?

    00

  • #
    Tony

    For heaven’s sake, where’s the EVIDENCE it’s not all natural?

    11

  • #
    el gordo

    Reinforcing our collective beliefs, the echo chamber effect.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/28/climate_change_echo_chambers/

    00