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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

New poll: 54% of Australians are still skeptics of man-made climate catastrophe

Despite all the spin, the non-stop propaganda, a dreadful drought and the two “record” hot years, most Australians still don’t agree with the IPCC This is exactly the same as it was in 2015 when the CSIRO last did a serious climate poll.

The IPSOS Climate Change Report

So we sit, a nation of majority skeptics, with no major party to vote for and hardly any TV media, academics or politicians making the case that the IPCC might be wrong and the Paris agreement might be a waste of time. No one is allowed to discuss it and national leaders stay cowed in silence for fear of being called petty names.

There is little to crystallize or focus this sentiment that doubts the experts, yet it exists, even in surveys designed by a team who appear to be doing their best to find and amplify the “believer” vote.

The IPSOS survey suffers from the the usual flaws: loaded questions, ambiguous terms and one sided analysis. Respondents are asked magical pie questions about solving problems as if they only need to wave a fairy wand and it shall be solved. They’re not asked how many dollars they personally want to spend solving it. It’s as if life is not about the costs and benefits or trade-offs. It’s as deep as saying if you could save the world for free, would you?

54% of Australian are skeptical of man-made climate change, graph, poll, ipsos, 2019.

54% of Australian don’t believe man-made climate change is the dominant driver.   |   Ipsos, 2019.

What really matters is what would you give up in order to change this?

This  new IPSOS climate change poll of 1000 people was conducted in December and finally published, coincidentally, on Sunday before the Labor Party launched its climate policy. IPSOS are telling Australians on the verge of an election that this is some kind of new record momentum. Matt Wade, at The Sydney Morning Herald repeats the IPSOS press release, “this was a record share of Australians that say humans cause climate change”. It’s the usual half-truth — the whole truth is that the CSIRO did multiple surveys involving 17,000 people from 2010 – 2014 and nothing has changed. Isn’t that the kind of research that both IPSOS and investigative reporters might want to mention?

 Here are the CSIRO results from 2015. Spot the difference?

 

The gap between what the experts say and the public believes exists all around the world. In the US the AAAS found that while 87% of experts say climate change mostly “man-made” only 50% of Americans thought the experts were right. (And that was before Trump arrived — it’d be bound to be less now.)

 Only 86% of Australians “believe” man-kind has any effect at all

To get a high number IPSOS and the parrot-media bundle together all the people who believe man-made climate change has any possible effect at all. They report that “86% of Australians believe humans contribute to climate change in some way”.  That’s a category that would include most die-hard skeptics (like me) — so it’s about as meaningless a statement as anyone can make. The only thing it tells us is that the IPSOS investigators badly want to spin this.

If one third of Australians think the situation is part man – part nature, that’s a lot of people who already think the news is hyped and who won’t want to spend a lot of money.

Where do Australians rank climate change – last

When voters can rank climate change it’s the last thing they care about. Year after year, “the environment” is dead last on pretty much every survey, everywhere.

How many times do people need to tell politicians that being a skeptic isn’t the vote killer that some commentators would like you to believe? Even people who believe in man-made global warming just aren’t as concerned about the environment as they are about jobs, corruption, and the economy.

What’s the biggest issue at the moment: Cost of Living.

Note that this graph was done in colors that were so indecipherably similar it was almost like IPSOS didn’t want us to see the data (see that original). So I changed the colors.

 

IPSOS poll, 2019, climate change ranking.

IPSOS report page 4.

IPSOS’s headline about that bottom green line is “Environment returns as an important issue”. Well, No. It doesn’t.

I’ll have more to say about this survey…

h/t Dave B.

REFERENCES

The IPSOS Climate Change Report

CSIRO — Australian attitudes to Climate Change, 2015 PDF

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (72 votes cast)
New poll: 54% of Australians are still skeptics of man-made climate catastrophe, 9.8 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yxr5w5nl

122 comments to New poll: 54% of Australians are still skeptics of man-made climate catastrophe

  • #
    AndyG55

    There is no doubt that man can affect the local climate… eg urban heat, land use changes.

    And there is no doubt that some of these local effects, particularly urban heat, feed through into the “calculated” average global surface temperature.

    Besides the 60% or so data fabrication, and mal-adjustments of data, I suspect that if there is any real warming in the so-called global average surface temperature (whatever that means) comes from these local effects.

    But the story of mankind changing the “global” climate in any way whatsoever because of its small contributions to atmospheric CO2, is a total piece of anti-science fantasy BS. !

    I have yet to see any way in which the “climate” has actually changed in my whole lifetime.

    A rise of less that one degree, whether real or not, is inconsequential, and probably rather beneficial if it does exist.

    635

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Well put Andy.

      The issue of UHI is so easily disposed of that it wasn’t chosen as the “vehicle” to carry the Global Warming Monster.

      Instead that poor invisible gas CO2 is used as the scapegoat to construct the imaginary control mechanism with which to beat the slaves into their rightful place: Subservience.

      UHI does have its uses though, it’s facilitated the rewriting of the temperature record to provide evidence that justifies the whole thing.

      The concept of Democracy is tarnished forever.

      KK

      383

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        For as long as I can remember, the ALP’s concept of democracy has been “winner takes all”.

        They never noticed that the other side does not follow that line.

        61

      • #
        Dave in the States

        “Instead that poor invisible gas CO2 is used as the scapegoat to construct the imaginary control mechanism..”

        CO2 was chosen precisely so it could be used to affect policy. After all how do they demonize and tax water vapor?

        The world’s deserts and their day/night transitions stand as testimony that CO2 has minuscule effect compared to water vapor and clouds.

        50

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Dave, you’ve highlighted the most important thing that people need to think about.

          Here where I live on the world’s surface the difference between day and night is maybe 10C°.

          Another longer-term variable is the difference between summer and winter which again is about 10C°.

          These extraordinary temperature variations of almost 40C° over the full year are acknowledged by real science as being due to orbital mechanics, not any variation in the CO2 content of our atmosphere.

          Inland about twenty miles from the coast the daily variation is even greater because there’s no influence from the gigantic ocean reservoir.

          As you say, we can learn a lot from observing the world’s deserts at the equator and poles.

          KK

          51

    • #
      Yonniestone

      UHI only effects the localized temperature at a low level, very useful for high reading thermometer’s placed in strategic positions.

      211

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Agree, I would be torn between calling it “not happening” and “mainly natural”.
      While the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age, there is NO human caused warming as far as I’m concerned.

      It is as you say, local effects only, and those local effects affect the thermometers. But the atmosphere, and the world is big place. I’d have to say those local effects have zero effect on the world at large.

      190

      • #
        Bobl

        The problem of course is a local effect of 2 Deg (man made) mathematically has a non zero effect on a world average. Therefore even I would say that it’s mostly natural with some insignificant man made effects around the margins.

        60

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          That is the whole of the issue. The mathematics would result in a non-zero increase. But it’s a mathematics result only, not a measurable result.

          I’m being more pragmatic, it would make zero difference to the world and the atmosphere at large.

          10

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      And now there is some serious examination of the effect of UHI on the mystical ‘global average temperature!
      Given that there is so much ‘homogenisation’ taking place, I find it doubtful that there has been any change at all in a hundred years other than down.

      140

    • #
      Geoff

      This does not stop bodies like “The Climate Group” feeding off Climate Change fears generated by …….. political dog whistlers and government departments that benefit from Climate Change Policy.

      The Climate Group set the Climate Change Acts and policies for NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia that are slowly but surely destroying our economy.

      60

    • #

      There is almost no real science behind
      the fairy tales of a coming climate crisis.

      But we skeptics have something the
      climate alarmists try to ignore:

      We have 300+ years of global warming
      since the cold Maunder Minimum period
      in the late 1600′s.

      The warming was good news all the way !

      No one was hurt physically, or financially !

      The era of man made CO2 emissions,
      starting about 1940
      was 78 years so far,
      through the end of 2018:

      1/3 of the time we had warming (1975 to 2003),

      2/3 of the time we had cooling (1940 to 1975),
      or a flat trend (2003 through 2018).

      The science is OBVIOUSLY not settled !

      Any fear that global warming is accelerating,
      is relieved by the flat global average temperature
      trend from 2003 through 2018.

      Any fear that hot areas will get hotter days,
      is relieved by the fact that post 1975 warming was
      mainly in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere,
      mainly during the six coldest months of the year,
      and mainly warmer nights, not warmer days !

      The few people that live in those colder areas
      are CELEBRATING global warming, and want more !

      Our planet is also ‘greening’ from more CO2 in the air.

      More good news !

      Why would anyone with sense
      want the past 300+ years of global
      warming to stop — it has been beneficial
      in every way !

      We skeptics have reality on our side –
      past climate change was 100% good news !

      The Climate Change Alarmists don’t deal
      with reality ( they even change past
      historical temperature data )
      because they live in the fantasy world
      of the future, where all global warming
      is 100% bad news …
      but
      they have been predicting bad news
      since the late 1950s (Roger Revelle)
      and forecasting bad news with their
      computer games for over 30 years
      … but bad news never shows up !

      Which world would you rather live in ?

      The real world of beneficial global warming,
      or the fantasy world of runaway global warming ?

      If you are a leftist, who needs to be unhappy,
      and always predicting a coming disaster,
      how about using real science, for a change,
      and worrying about the end of the current
      Holocene interglacial, and the cooling that
      will follow ?

      When our planet exits the Holocene interglacial,
      people will start demanding MORE CO2
      in the atmosphere, hoping for global warming !

      My climate science blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      00

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    It’s great to have “polls” that gauge how potential voters “feel” about issues.

    That’s politics.

    The scientific reality is another matter and is the prime issue here.

    The deliberately squashed, distorted and “political” science surrounding the CO2 issue is appalling and is a world wide blight on Humanity that must soon be exposed and done away with.

    Our world scientific community has been sent to that island from which there is no escape.

    Devil Island is their home and they can’t escape.

    Until they do, we are effectively Enslaved to the myth of Human Origin CO2 being an active heating agent in the atmosphere.

    An absolute lie, perpetuated by the Elites.

    KK

    403

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day KK,
      I agree with you completely, up to the last word. “Elites” in my view includes an element of decency which I find completely lacking in the avid supporters of the climate scam. Unfortunately the only words that I might use in its place would not pass Jo’s respectability test.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      130

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Yes, now that you prompt me.

        50

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          In thinking about this as I did some tree lopping this morning I could only come up with one approach which might work: use “Elites” in every reference. I think it has enough implication of misplaced useage, and indicates we don’t have much regard for these types, without having to usedescriptors which could get us into trouble at variuos levels.
          What do you reckon?
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          30

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Yes, the word has always probably been used in the Global Warming setting in a sardonic or ironic manner but the most likely intent has been sarcasm.

            The Elites have certainly reached the apex of something; perhaps they are the highest focus of our contempt?

            MalEx444 comes to mind.

            KK

            20

    • #
      neil

      There is no doubt our great grandchildren will be perplexed and laugh about our ignorance like we are at the belief in witches and the murder of innocent women that resulted from fake religions, fake news,fake science.

      20

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Australian politicians of all stripes are working for the UN, not Australians.

    A relevant article (h/t catallaxyfiles):

    From Zero Hedge a couple of days ago … assuming it has not been blocked on your ISP –
    You’re A Sucker If You Don’t Believe The System Is Rigged.
    Here’s a snippet:

    “Why do you think our elite is so eager to pass new laws and regulations?
    Is it because normal people like you and me are running wild in the streets?
    No, of course not.
    They don’t want to regulate political campaigns to make sure elections are fair.
    They want to regulate them so they will always win and we never will again.”

    223

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      They have Us.

      Many examples exist that show the driving force is money.

      One recent state government in our area gutted the local water supply company of decades of local savings for a much needed dam. That money went to Sydney and was no doubt used to good effect there.

      The other side of politics, holding the chains on the left side of us, saw the need, or maybe the opportunity, to transfer cash to their active constituencies.

      They built Desalination plants. They don’t work, but they did the job. Lotsa happy workas from the Laba Parti.

      Almost nothing that modern governments do now is for our benefit.

      It’s for theirs.

      KK

      222

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        It will get tot critical mass and people will demand answers.

        At that point when people have had enough and start making pitchforks and torches, the Elite will desperately kick of a war to stop them all being hung from the nearest telephone pole…..its very predictable….

        120

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    But the left still flogs the issue, because they are winning. Not in the sense that they are changing peoples minds, but in the sense of fostering a resignation that this stupidity is going to go on, thus ordinary people simply roll their eyes, and tell one another that the pain isn’t that bad. A few rooftop systems, and some small subsidies, pollution of our universities, the obligitory drone of “Climate Change!, that must be inserted into every article on every topic.

    This is the purpose of propaganda and the big lie.
    This is the purpose of the mandate that certain truths must go unsaid.
    This is why truth tellers aren’t permitted to speak in public any more.

    On any measure, half of us are below the media, and this includes the ability to think abstractly and independently. Thus there will will always be a cohort that relies more on emotion that intellectual thought, and on our evolutionary ‘quick-decision’ mechanisms.
    These work pretty well, and a reasonable society absorbs almost everyone & offers a good life. But the quality of that life has always differed among various cohorts, regardless of economic system, leaving groups that can be mobilized using the levers of emotion to gain power. As a species we have done some really wonderful things, like going to the moon, and some really awful ones, like the Children’s Crusades.

    The original propagandists were the tribal chiefs; then the religions; and lately the “isms” of philosophical thought.
    A popular saying of one of the “isms” was “religion is the oipiate of the masses”.

    But that “ism” was an opiate on its own; one tell is the old joke “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”.
    More than 50% of the people knew that “ism” was a failure, yet it endured for many years, killed millions of people, and is still
    revered nostalgically by some.

    So now we come to Climate Change and more generally environmentalism (Another “ism); simply a set of propaganaa ‘sprichworts’ built around a germ of truth that we are supposed to repeat as a catechism, while the same old tired process of authoritarian control on all of life goes on under its banner.

    On balance, glabal warming centered environmentalism is making our lives worse, or at least more expensive, as it consumes without producing. This is another characteristic of all these myth centered collectively organized systems.

    Skeptics need to be louder. “isms” always claim to protect the poor. Their policies always hurt the poor. For the first time in history, mechanisms exist to communicate outside the propagandist controlled channels.

    Their next big thing will be to close off these channels, lest their game be exposed.

    I’m been trying to simply yell “bullshit” (or “bullspit” in more polite company) every time I hear the word, following by asking the speaker why they felt compelled to bring it up in whatever context they were in. The typical response is, of course, that I am obnoxious. I readily agree, suggesting that it is worth it to save us all from the myth of climate change. Pretty soon I won’t have any “friends” who don’t agree with me, but I believe that passive acceptance is an invitation to disaster.

    Its time to ask why a majority in thought can’t seem to win a majority in vote. That’s not a good trend.

    122

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Excuse me for being skeptical …

    4Hiroshima bombs per second:

    “When scientists add up all of the heat warming the oceans, land, and atmosphere and melting the ice, they find our climate is accumulating 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second.”

    http://4hiroshimas.com

    18 March, 2019: Meteor blast over Bering Sea was 10 times size of Hiroshima

    Fireball over Kamchatka peninsula in December went largely unnoticed at the time -

    “The fireball tore across the sky off Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula on 18 December and released energy equivalent to 173 kilotons of TNT. It was the largest air blast since another meteor hurtled into the atmosphere over Chelyabinsk, in Russia’s south-west, six years ago, and the second largest in the past 30 years.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/18/meteor-blast-over-bering-sea-was-10-times-size-of-hiroshima?CMP=share_btn_tw

    52

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Hi Travis, the 4Hiroshimas thing is an example of the new Scientific Communications degree attitude.

      No Science, just manipulation.

      The second item makes me glad I don’t live in that part of Russia, but helps give some perspective to life.

      KK

      52

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Another issue: sure the blog needs some “colour” but has tolerance gone a bit too far for a bit too long?

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/weekend-unthreaded-253/#comment-2124777

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/weekend-unthreaded-253/#comment-2124013

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/weekend-unthreaded-253/#comment-2124054

        This isn’t about free speech; it’s about whether we need to tolerate deliberately destructive input that mirrors the wider problem that’s destroying society.

        Jo goes to a lot of trouble to present this blog and is being insulted by the continuing presence.

        ?
        KK

        ————
        KK. I’m not insulted. He generates comments and asks the questions no one else does. However if he is annoying good commenters through patterns of uncivil behaviour then we have a problem. It’s not OK for someone to demand answers who won’t answer questions. It’s not OK to dominate threads and dilute responses. It’s not OK if smart people get too bored and leave the discussion. – Email me. – Jo]

        72

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          The impression I’ve got is that PF deliberately sets out to disrupt the numbering system and leaves a bit of warmist propaganda hanging in place where any reply to it gets lost.
          His hypocracy in seeking a link when he refuses to provide any when challenged is insulting to Jo and everyone who is trying to contribute positively to any current discussion.

          In my opinion he has crossed the boundries of free speech, and/or academic freedom. In fact, I see him as a saboteur.
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          40

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Off Topic completely, and was discussed a week or so ago

      21

    • #
      Bobl

      A Hiroshima bomb if I remember was only 14 KT but the world is a big place, the energy is not concentrated, it’s dispersed across the world as just 0.6watts in 10000 cubic metres of atmosphere, or one Led Christmas light in 5 Olympic swimming pools.

      That’s not the least scary despite the lame attempt to make it so.

      31

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Ive got a mate who does concreting and is outdoors all the time.

    He reckons nothig has changed over 30 years hes been doing it.

    Still gets really cold, still gets really hot.

    He is a labor true believer.

    152

    • #
      Dennis

      My son is a builder and says that same about the weather conditions.

      He tells people who have office jobs that if they spent more time regularly in the outdoors they would realise that the weather channel reports are over stated.

      162

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I mentioned the myth of climate chnage, he just laughed….

        And right there is the problem the sc*m mongers have – people know its complete nonsense.

        162

  • #
    Dennis

    Late evening yesterday I watched CH9, Chris Ullman interviewing Josh Frydenberg regarding the 2019/20 Budget. One of the questions was about why, according to the interviewer, the budget did not make provision for more money for climate change.

    The Treasurer pointed out that the Paris Agreement emissions target is on track to be achieved and that the allocated amount was sensible.

    MSM will not acknowledge the hoax.

    110

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      No, if they did, they would be forced into an MSM-destroying class action law suit….

      They have the lion by the tail, and they dare not let go…..

      70

    • #
      Peter C

      MSM will not acknowledge the hoax

      And neither will Josh Frydenberg, unfortunately. Chris Ulmann gave him an opportunity. Like almost all the rest, he squibed it.

      150

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Lack of courage under fire….disappointing…..

        110

      • #
        Dennis

        Alan Jones of Radio 2GB Sydney confronted Josh Frydenberg late 2018 about climate change, Jones reminded the Minister about a conversation the two of them had in the front yard of the Minister’s home. The Minister told Jones (when PM Abbott was the leader) that he did not accept man made global warming (climate change). About that time PM Abbott remarked that it was “crap”.

        PM Abbott also commented that he will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

        What a situation when our representatives, our elected representatives go along with the hoax and pour taxpayer’s monies into an exercise in futility.

        110

      • #
        glen Michel

        Frydenberg I’m afraid is a bad seller- and unconvincing so there will no big rub for this budget.He is supercilious and a sophist to boot and has no balls.

        90

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Chris Ullman.

      No more needs be said.

      A couple of years ago when I was watching TV he interviewed a non laba, non green politician and attacked and abused this person.

      An arrogant, opinionated member of the media elite.

      KK

      70

      • #
        glen Michel

        I seem to recall he penned a piece for The Australian a couple of years ago and his then ABC mates went into afrenzy. I think the subject was hyperbole about AGW.

        40

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Really?

          20

          • #
            Pete Repeat

            I remember that! Religion is the opium of the people; and the ‘true believers’ have found their new deity – Gaia.

            On ABC Insiders, Chris Uhlmann said this: “as a former seminarian…one of things that strikes me most strongly about this debate is its theological nature – and that’s essentially that we have sinned against the environment, that we are now being punished and that the only way we can escape that punishment is to wear a hair shirt for the rest of our lives…”.

            40

  • #
    Dennis

    The Sky Fell last month, but almost nobody noticed.

    The sky fell on Hawaii last month, all because carbon dioxide levels peeped above the much-hyped 400 ppm hurdle. Chicken Littles all over the world squawked into their friendly media megaphones about numerous imminent global warming disasters. One warned: “the fate of the world hangs in the balance.” (Similar alarms were rung when the 350 ppm level was passed).

    But nobody else noticed anything scary.

    Four pieces of well-established evidence say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.

    Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures.

    Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than the even the worst warming forecast.

    Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.

    Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans – US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration – it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.

    Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again.

    Viv Forbes,
    Rosewood Qld Australia

    252

    • #
      Serp

      Given that our youth has been indoctrinated to abandon education and take up the mindless chanting of CAGW liturgy it is clear that in thirty years there will be nobody left who is able to comprehend, let alone articulate, those four points.

      The New Dark Ages has us in its icy grip and leaderless Australia will succumb without a murmur.

      And that’s the good news…

      40

  • #
    Ruairi

    Most folks, it’s clear nowadays,
    As a new I.P.S.O.S. pie chart conveys,
    Are the skeptic majority,
    While the warmist minority,
    Get the hype in these climate surveys.

    190

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Delingpole: Nudie Protests Just Hide the Naked Truth About Climate Change – It’s a Massive Scam”

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/04/02/delingpole-nudie-protests-just-hide-the-naked-truth-about-climate-change-its-a-massive-scam/

    “All normal, sensible people know this stuff which is why doing something about climate change comes very low on their list of priorities.”

    “In the last two years, for example, Paul Homewood has had no fewer than eight complaints upheld about the BBC’s nakedly dishonest environmental coverage:

    The false claims made by the BBC were:

    Sea levels at Miami rising ten times the global mean.

    Tens of thousands of reindeer are being killed by climate change

    Climate change is making hurricanes worse.

    New onshore wind farms have been banned.

    Since 2005 floods have increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, wildfires by 7 times

    Penguin numbers in South Africa are being hit by climate change.”

    120

    • #
      Peter C

      Delingpole says it so well;

      This is so wrong.
      If any one at all has the right to protest against Britain’s environmental policies, it’s not that tiny minority of green activists whose warped and ignorant opinion is forever being sought by our sad, desperate and craven political class. Rather, it’s the vast majority of us who are sick to the craw of being over-taxed, over-regulated and over-propagandised in the name of a non-existent problem.

      Not one senior member of the government dares speak out against the scam.

      It’s just the same over here in Australia.

      120

  • #
    Dennis

    “This week Business Council of Australia chief Jennifer Westacott played the reality card on Labor’s 45-50 per cent targets for emissions and renewables: “We don’t have a plan to do this. How are we going to do this? If it’s economy wide, what is the mechanism by which we (Labor) are going to do this? Is it a cap and trade system? Is it the national energy guarantee? Is it a base-loading credit system? Are we going to exempt the trade-exposed sector? Are we going to allow the ‘carry over’ for Kyoto? I think the Australian people are entitled to understand how these things will be achieved. This is the history of the problem – people say stuff, then they try to implement it and everyone goes ‘Oh, hang on, we didn’t mean for those jobs to be gone’ – now we’ll have to have a compensation scheme. Then we stop and then we go backwards and then we make no progress. This is the history.” Yet nothing Westacott said – policy realities that must be faced by any Shorten government – impinge on the current climate change mantras that dominate our public debate. Just listen to the independent progressives crusading on climate change in leafy Liberal seats to grasp how much this debate has regressed over the past 15 years. They talk endlessly about saving the planet and the urgency for Australia to do more, as though the policy and political obstacles of the past 15 years never happened….” The Weekend Australian Paul Kelly

    70

  • #
    robert rosicka

    The alarmist non scientist Will Stephan on the radio yesterday screeching about the hottest start to a year evaaaaahhhhhhh .
    Was asked by a caller to explain the northern hemisphere cold snap and he replied by blaming unprecedented shifting of the blah blah blah caused by CAGW that then causes climate disruption.
    Going by comments on Facebook about Labor ,Green and CAGW I’m seeing increased comments laying ridicule on all three so there may be hope yet .

    82

    • #
      Dennis

      Has he held any more Ice BBQ parties?

      60

    • #
      Edwina

      Back in 2007 when the “science was settled” the forecast was there would be less and less snow. Yet above record snow falls have happened in many parts of the world. Q…why wasn’t this fact predicted by the “settled science”? After all, science is supposed to be predictive if it truly settled.

      130

      • #
        el gordo

        Its not settled, but a meandering jet stream is a sign of global cooling.

        Because of its wayward nature it has recently produced heatwaves in Australia.

        71

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Exactly, and THEY dont want you to know the science ‘isnt settled’ and never was. Science isnt about settlement.

          80

      • #
        Annie

        There is a whole lot more of that stuff that children would never see come down overnight onto the Cumbrian fells. It’s very pretty! I’ll try to get photo’s when/if the cloud lifts a bit more.

        21

  • #
    David Wojick

    Unfortunately these surveys never include the option “we don’t know” which is very different from “I don’t know”. If “we don’t know” got a good percentage the message would be very different. Scientific uncertainty is not a basis for action.

    180

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks David,
      I love our language and its possible nuances, but I’d not appreciated the difference in the use of “I” and “We” in this context.
      Unfortunately I reckon our pollsters cannot afford to put both questions. It would be job destroying. For them.
      Cheers,
      Dave.

      80

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Language is very important to skew surveys like that. All carefully worded to give results which favor the incumbent opinion or the ‘propaganda’ and the AGENDA.

      80

    • #
      MudCrab

      Point well noted.

      I, for one, believe in climate change; its getting colder.

      If you ask me the big enquiring question then I come down as anti-”Global Warming(tm)”

      However if you force it into a binary yes/no question then I have to answer that no, I don’t believe in climate change because answering YES would make me a Warmist. Answering NO however makes me into one of those evil Denier types who reject science.

      Its all in the wording, and what isn’t in the wording is in the reporting.

      50

      • #

        Good point David W. Well put.

        @Mudcrab — 4% said there is no climate change.
        The term is so ambiguous, who can tell what that means — the climate is the same, the man-made theory is a scam, or “I’m fed up with these stupid surveys”.

        81

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          Another factor I once considered in answering the question was the time frame – my lifetime, current era, historical, or geological?
          The use of the start of the Industrial Revolution as a reference point, rather than the end of the Little Ice Age is also misleading.
          Cheers
          Dave B

          50

      • #
        Kneel

        As always, “Yes, Prime Minister” provides the perfect antidote to taking a survey too seriously:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

        30

  • #
    Steve

    Climate change isn’t even on that chart. “Environment” can mean lots of different things to people.

    90

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      This is the other deceit. They imply a thing not said, and tell you it’s all going to pot. But when asked about specifics they are short on the ground.

      I am getting more concerned about the huge amount of waste society is generating. Most of it is mandated in the form of packaging. There is barley a thing you can buy that isn’t packaged. And this is all instantly binned as soon as you get it home. Just waste.

      80

  • #

    The Undead can’t even get their moronic push polls to agree with their imbecilic slave media. Makes you wonder about that all-blood diet.

    60

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    The Fairfax media ( now merged with Channel 9) are still experts at fakery & spin.

    And that is why so many folk feel alarmed about ( non existent ) global warming.

    They are mislead by expert propagandists.

    The big lie etc etc..

    But there is rom for hope : 54% of the Australians sampled ( always an interesting issue ) disagreed.

    The real issue how to help the 46% of our fellow Australians realise that they have deceived by propaganda.

    It’s pointless ‘blaming’ Fredenberg or Morrison. They just want to stay in office. And part of their way to do that, as Liberals, is ‘soothe’ the feelings of the propaganda bewildered ‘alarmed’ folk.

    We here know this is a waste of money as it will achieve nothing.

    And I suggest that in their heart of hearts Fredenberg & Morrison know that as well.

    But soothing the feelings of 3-4% of extra voters may help them win.

    NONE of this SCIENCE…It’s politics..

    And the real important question is : How to ‘soothe’ the feelings of the propaganda bewildered ‘alarmed’ folk in our midst.

    52

    • #
      el gordo

      All we ask at this stage, is for the ABC to stop pushing the global warming meme and return to the centre.

      The other day Channel 9 told Fairfax staff to avoid editorialising, so there is a glimmer of hope that sanity may return quite soon.

      We still have to come up with a different scientific hypothesis to AGW.

      60

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        EG it’s not just the ABC. What about the Guardian, The Conversation, the Saturday Paper or INDaily here in SA.

        All of these media organisations are putting forth this propaganda. plus afew that have escaped my notice.

        Perhaps some of their staff know it is hokum ?

        But many were hired actually as ‘true’ believers with the job of pushing this propaganda.

        And these propagandists see it as their mission to win converts to the Global Warming Greenist cause.

        Presenting the science will not make any difference. It all a feelings based scarist cause.

        So what could help to help change these feelings ?

        53

        • #
          el gordo

          The Guardian is a free entity and can do what it likes, but the ABC must stop spreading propaganda because its publicly owned.

          ‘So what could help to help change these feelings ?’

          If the ABC presented balance, then it would change everything because the organisation is highly respected.

          30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT in this thread but have just come across this map which shows why electric cars in oz have a limited relevance .

    https://aifs.gov.au/publications/families-regional-rural-and-remote-australia/figure1

    50

    • #
      George4

      I was thinking about electric cars and wondered since high tax is paid on petrol/diesel at $0.412 per litre which funds roads.
      If we switch to electric cars, what will pay for roads ?

      70

  • #
  • #
    George4

    Politicians usually won’t deny the need for action on climate change because it gives them a bigger role to play and makes them more important in the quest to save the world from disaster.
    Such a pity it is all a f[word].

    60

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      If they didn’t have the climate to complain about, they’d have to think of something to do….

      50

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Thank god for the $CAGW$ devotees that the Holocene warming stopped the day the industrial revolution started in Europe..so that ALL “ warming” can now be ascribed to humans.
    I believe that the Holocene warming will be referred to in our Orwellian future as ”a canard used by fossil fuel shills”
    And the Holocene warming will be “vanished” from text books slowly by our marxist masters..

    70

  • #
    Geoff P

    The Coalition is half pregnant, Labor is fully pregnant and the Greens are having twins. The only way to avoid giving birth to an economy destroying Climate Alarm Monster is to vote for a minor conservative party at the upcoming elections.

    91

    • #
      AndyG55

      Remember, that these small conservative parties are only just starting up (One Nation has been around for a while) It can take a long time to build up the “brand”, especially when the ABC and other MSM avoid even mentioning them.

      The reason ON has grown is because the ABC et al keep attacking Pauline Hansen, so more and more people hear of ON and decide they can relate to the ON message.

      While these conservative parties are as yet unlikely to win HOR seats, it would be nice to see them making headway in the Senate.

      102

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    To be quite FRANK, that poll DOESNT look good for us ‘truthers’ about Globull warming. ONLY 15% believe that humans have ZERO effect on climate, the rest are branewashed out of their tiny minds by the endless crap and lies and innuendo regurgitated ad nausea by the GOV agencies and the MSM.
    MORE work needs to be done!

    60

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Good thing it was not compared to the Roy Morgan polling
    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7504-most-important-problems-australia-the-world-february-2018-201803051043
    Environment is more important than energy in this poll, which says a lot about polling than it does about issues

    410

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Bullsh*t Fitz..

      Read your OWN link properly mate.

      And you will find at the bottom of the page this sentence:
      “Climate change/Global warming was mentioned by just over 7% of Australians ”

      The most important issue mentioned in that Roy Morgan poll was the economy.

      The headline you quote is just bum fluff invented by one of their propagandists to get fake attention.

      103

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        I don’t think you understand the difference between ‘quantified thematic analysis’ and ‘single issue analysis’ Charts one and two respectively, mind you – you would not be the only one.

        However the point is not that, but the comparison between Australia and the World.

        As pointed out in Jo’s post, depending on the question, the answer is often predetermined.

        as this old ‘Yes Minister’ clip shows (it’s just over 2 minutes, but well worth it)

        411

        • #
          AndyG55

          Make it up as you go along . pfutz… as we all know, even simple graphs confuse you.

          As you say, in greenie polls the answer is ALWAYS pre-determined.. hence MEANGINGLESS, just like your posts.

          Now, do you have any evidence that human CO2 has affected the global climate in any way whatsoever ????

          91

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          More of your BS baffling brains hey Fitz ?

          42

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            ?????????????So no constructive comment????????????????

            37

            • #
              AndyG55

              No, you never do have pfutz.

              Always twisted and meaningless gibberish.

              Now, do you have any evidence that human CO2 has affected the global climate in any way whatsoever ????

              51

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Topic can you stay on it please?

                26

              • #
                AndyG55

                So that would be a resounding NO, you have no evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming

                Thanks, but we KNEW that. ! :-)

                Faceplant again, microbe. !

                02

              • #
                AndyG55

                Very much ON topic.

                Its about this mythical “climate change™” that you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for.

                11

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor pfutz, So funny,

          You probably don’t even know where you were speaking gibberish. :-)

          Hearing and NOT comprehending, yet again. :-)

          61

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Bill every link the putz puts up as evidence that I’ve seen usually counters his own argument somewhere in it .

        41

    • #
      George4

      11% vote for environmental issues.
      Half of those are probably dependent on the global warming gravy train.
      There is also probably some farmers who voted for the environmental issue of feral dogs, rabbits, controls on clearing and water licenses as the most important to them ☻

      81

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      says a lot about polling than it does about issues

      I agree. I have worked with surveys. It is very difficult to get information. My first time (1966) was standing on a sidewalk in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio and asking folk to stop and answer about 10 questions.
      Now mail and phone surveys are increasingly costly. Many web-type surveys get responses from self-selected folks, and not a random sample.
      I never heard of ‘roymorgan’ and don’t care.

      70

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Before I read the article, the first thing I always check is the URL. In this case it’s roymorgan.com. Which means it has no .au on it. It’s an American based poll company.

        Then the sub-header.
        March 06 2018 Finding No. 7504 Topic: Most Important Issues Press Release Public Opinion Country: Australia

        No idea how they polled it from the States, but it’s suss from the get-go when you’re polling another country entirely.

        50

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          They polled 650 Australians.

          Yep, quality poll there.

          50

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            and IPSOS is headquartered in France, and the survey quoted here used a sample of 1000 people, so the same criticism should apply to it.

            Following your logic, we should discount this poll as well

            39

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Yep, 1000 people polled will produce unrepresentative results. Try as they may to get a random sample, or a representative sample (there is a difference), I’ve seen too many times small polls produce unrealistic results.

              Australia is too big and there are too many competing needs and ideologies for each State, to make anything of 1000 people. Adelaide people will be very different to Cairns people, who will be diametrically opposite Hobart people. And God only knows what Perth people think…

              30

        • #
          Another Ian

          Greg

          Plenty of Oz emails end in .bigpond.com

          There is also .bigpond.com.au

          10

      • #

        John, Roy Morgan is one of Australia’s largest and longest polling firms.
        http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/about

        The .com thing is deceptive. You’ve never heard of them because they are Australian.

        50

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Environment” is a nebulous term.

      I care strongly about the environment, that is why I hate to see all these totally unnecessary wind turbines and solar farms sprouting up in wild areas. I also hate to see the carnage of upper levels of avian wildlife, and the cruelty to bats from these hideous landscape destroying monstrosities.

      That is why I hate to see the anti-CO2 agenda, when all of nature DEPENDS on that atmospheric CO2 and the current level is really quite low for plant photosynthesis.

      Now, what real changes have happened to the global “climate” in the last 40 years that can be scientifically be linked to human causes?

      We await yet another EMPTY zero-evidence post from you, pfutz.

      91

  • #
    MudCrab

    It’s all in the words.

    Note that in the IPSOS graph the field is labelled ‘The Environment’.

    What does this mean? Well anything you want it to really. I personally think the environment is important because I don’t want dead vegans cluttering up my local waterways after dying from protein deficiency. I would happily say that I believe The Environment is an issue that needs to be considered, but in the same sentence state that Global Warming(tm) is a complete con. So to claim ‘The Environment’ is a major issue with voters does not automatically transfer to ‘Global Warming(tm) being an issue unless they can provide additional information.

    Also note that ‘Cost of Living’ and ‘The Economy’ are separated, possibly because most people do not related them directly to each other. There are exceptions of course, but broadly speaking if the economy is booming and I am turning down job offers due to my skill sets being in constant demand then I am also probably blessed with enough disposable income that I have already paid for my cost of living in the loose change left over from Pub Night.

    In simple terms Cost of Living and The Economy are the same thing because the end desire from Mr and Mrs Public is to have more Fun Money at the end of the week. Look at it in those terms and Fun Money jumps to 50%.

    Think about that boys and girls. You can ‘issue’ as much as you like, but deep down the public want to be taxed less and to be more free to spend their own money and come the election the only people who REALLY care about your party’s Climate Change(tm) policy are the people who are already voting Green.

    80

  • #
    Vensaint

    We mustn’t despair, the world’s second biggest hypocrite Al Gore is coming out to Australia in June to educate industry and government on climate change. No doubt he will be setting the record straight and putting the great unwashed 54% majority on the path to salvation. Just watch our media and politicians pander to him like he’s the messiah. Truly sickening.

    70

  • #

    Joanne Nova, I am a DENIER and proud of it: I deny that is any global warming – but I don’t confuse the ignorant, as you are doing: to refer to the PHONY global warming as ”climate change” 3] because most climates on this planet are in constant change, but the PHONY global warming is P H O N Y = same as you. Cheers!!!

    [Stefan, why are you so angry?] ED

    12

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Stefan stay off the sauce your rambling like a nutter .
      CO2 may have an effect on climate , there is just no evidence as to how much and which way .

      30

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Robert, I agree with the sauce bit but human origin CO2 really can’t do anything from either an operational or quantitative perspective in terms of “heating” the atmosphere.

        KK

        20

  • #
    Mick S

    I forwarded Jo’s article ,”solar power white ants grid”"to my nephew in Kalgoolie.
    He thought that his system was faulty in that it was not exporting power to the grid during
    the prime time of the day for solar.After reading the article and making inquiries to the installer,
    he was told that the inverter cuts out if the voltage reaches a certain level.I’m sure that there
    are householders who are not aware of this when they decide to install solar panels.

    60

  • #
    Morphy

    What’s more worrying is that 46% still, after all the counter evidence and empirical data pointing away from “anthropogenic”, believe it is “entirely man-made”.

    20

  • #

    (…) It’s the usual half-truth — (…)

    The seas and oceans cover more than 75% of our planet and are therefore the largest emitters of gas in the world

    0.21 m² (70 x 30 cm) x 7 billion = 1 470 000 000 m² (1470 km²) *

    * an equivalent area between the Val d’Oise and Guadeloupe or 6 times the size of Marseille! or the surface of Mexico

    20

  • #

    (…) It’s the usual half-truth — (…)

    The seas and oceans cover more than 75% of our planet and are therefore the largest emitters of gascarbonic in the world

    0.21 m² (70 x 30 cm) x 7 billion = 1 470 000 000 m² (1470 km²) *

    * an equivalent area between the Val d’Oise and Guadeloupe or 6 times the size of Marseille! or the surface of Mexico

    10

  • #
    graham dunton

    In my opinion, this podcast URL, is worth distributing.

    Link via wuwt-March 29, 2019 By The Federalist Staff
    A podcast-Physics Reveals ‘Green’ Energy Sources Are Unrealistic And Unsustainable

    (SIC) Can existing “green” energy match the efficiency of fossil fuels? Mark P. Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, shares his new report on The Federalist Radio Hour, where he examines the physics behind green energy proposals. Mills shows why the world is nowhere near ready to undergo this “urgent” transition demanded by climate change alarmists.
    “You have to recognize what Mother Nature, the physics, permits and doesn’t permit,” he said. “New discoveries will come from basic science, not from subsidies for yesterday’s technologies. We didn’t get the internet by subsidizing the rotary phone.”(EQ)

    https://www.podcastone.com.au/episode/Physics-Reveals-Green-Energy-Sources-Are-Unrealistic-And-Unsustainable

    40

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      An interesting take on how to move forward.
      Had CSIRO been given the job of devising a new electricity generation system for the future that would have been fantastic.

      Instead their good name was used as an advertising gimmick to force the imposition of miserable Renewable Technologies.

      They could now be given the job of bringing us into the modern age by developing a plan to bring in the best current technologies in HELE and Nuclear generation.

      Where are our Leaders?

      KK

      KK

      20

      • #
        Serp

        Surely you don’t mean MalEx440? Isn’t he still driving this entire fiasco?

        20

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Someone should restore the CSIRO.

          It certainly won’t be Mal.

          10

          • #
            Serp

            Yes, poor hollowed out CSIRO which was originally set up to assist industry and agriculture but has been shanghaied into the climate scam and dodgy recipe books and lord knows what other fly-by-night cheapskate ventures.

            The whole country needs rebuilding from scratch beginning with the education system.

            But while election cycles drive the change agenda that genie cannot be put back in the bottle –after all education reform is a twenty year project.

            31

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Dispiriting but true.

              Maybe we need to copy them and set up re-education camps.

              For those who don’t want to be re-educated but want to still collect their “entitlement” there could be live in work opportunities to rehabilitate the Murray river banks.

              KK

              10