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

Most people in the West are still skeptics of climate change and the IPCC position

A large Yougov Climate Change survey has questioned about 1,000 people in 30 different countries. Despite being loaded and biased towards the IPCC religious position, and despite 30 years of non-stop propaganda, most of the population in major western countries are not obedient believers in the IPCC message.

h/t GWPF

Who do this half of the population vote for? Which mainstream major party even says humans are only partly responsible?

If political parties represented the voters, one of the two major  parties in every country would be willing to say “the IPCC exaggerates the problem”. Only the USA (at the moment) has a leader that doesn’t repeat the IPCC line, even though many Republicans still do. In most western nations both sides of politics are competing for the 40 – 50% of the population that thinks humans are mainly responsible. As Donald Trump, Tony Abbott, Doug Ford and Jason Kenny show, most voters are easily inspired to vote against the climate dogma.

These numbers are typical of bigger and better studies over the years. Though the UK figure shows more believers than an ITV Newrs poll in 2014 showed. (Fully 62% of the UK were skeptical then and may still be if they were asked in a decent survey.)

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, USA.

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, USA.

I’ve included “don’t knows” as skeptical simply because saying “don’t know” in a loaded survey, and after all these years of repetition of the politically correct line is very much a skeptical position. Who could claim they hadn’t heard the IPCC position when it’s now taught in schools? So the “don’t knows” are people who could’ve said they believed the IPCC but chose not too. Because anyone who doubts climate change is called ugly names — where’s the tolerance for diversity — we can also be sure that a percentage of people saying they agree with the IPCC are feeling badgered into it.

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, USA.

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, Australia.

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, USA.

Yougov, climate change survey, 2019,graph, UK.

 

How loaded are these questions?

Which of the following comes closest to your view?

It’s already too late to avoid the worst effects?
We are still able to avoid the worst…
We will be able to avoid the worst if we broadly carry on with the steps being taken.
Don’t know?

 Or how about the options they didn’t ask, and don’t want to hear?

Action to change the climate is mostly a waste of time and money

Action to change the climate is a deadly burden on good people that costs lives and livelihoods?

So when critics turn up to ask why the “don’t knows” are included as skeptics, my answer is that the survey was loaded and biased and largely maximized the number of believers.  Does anyone really think that the respondents would answer the same way if they’d also been offered realistic choices?

“Climate Change” is still a useless ambiguous phrase to design a survey around

Anyone who was really interested in knowing what people think would not use the term “climate change” because it intrinsically means natural change as well as man-made change, and they don’t specify.

Yougov, survey, 2019, Graph, countries, climate change.

 

So take it all with a grain of salt, but I am heartened to see our Scandinavian friends have a lot of skeptical brains and are often the least likely to “believe”.

So poorer countries stand to get handouts on this topic, and benefit from slowing down rich competitor economies.  There is little interest within poor nations to report any skeptical position so it’s not surprising that unopposed propaganda rules.

Yougov, survey, 2019, Graph, countries, climate change.

Yougov, survey, 2019, Graph, countries, climate change.

Australia is the purple dot on the “left most side” of range of Asian countries.

REFERENCE

Yougov, International Survey of Climate Change, 2019.

PDF of full results here

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (56 votes cast)
Most people in the West are still skeptics of climate change and the IPCC position, 9.1 out of 10 based on 56 ratings

65 comments to Most people in the West are still skeptics of climate change and the IPCC position

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    you have double posted one of the charts “expectations that….”

    50

    • #

      Thanks Peter. If the caching still returns that repeat try this https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/psychology/research/you-gov/yougov-2019-1-m.gif which should be the first image of the two.

      50

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        All good

        40

      • #

        I don’t care much about polls of non-scientists and had no intention of reading this article, but the surprising headline caught my attention.

        Just when I was thinking this Jo Nova site had bested WUWT as the best climate science site in the world, I was very disappointed by the deceptive headline of this article.

        Most people in the “West” (whatever that is) “are still skeptics of climate change and the IPCC position” ?

        That’s not true.

        Skeptics are rare.

        Most people responding to this survey think humans are mainly or partly responsible for climate change.

        Does a person who believes humans cause UP TO HALF of global warming, or ONE-THIRD, really count as a “skeptic” ?

        A skeptic who understands climate science would say “no one knows” the effect of humans outside of lab experiments.

        Humans cause 49% or warming = skeptic ?
        Human cause 51% of warming = believer ?

        Not that opinion surveys of non-scientists are of any importance to real climate science.

        00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The capacity of people to “go with the flow” to avoid missing out on whatever the group is experiencing is completely and absolutely mind numbing.

    KK

    80

  • #
    pat

    also Jo -

    under How loaded are these questions -

    We will be able to avoid the words (SHOULD BE WORST) if we broadly carry on with the steps being taken.

    —–
    Thanks Pat. Fixed. – Jo

    60

  • #
    pat

    and how can anyone beat the FakeNewsMSM which has reduced the topic to simply CLIMATE.

    16 Sept: NYT: 1.1 Million Students in N.Y.C. Can Skip School for Climate Protest
    By Anne Barnard
    (A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 17, 2019, Section A, Page 23 of the New York edition with the headline: City Grants a Permission Slip for Climate Protests)
    When New York City announced that public school students could skip classes without penalties to join the youth climate strikes planned around the world on Friday, you could almost hear a sigh of relief…
    Most of all, the decision last week by the nation’s largest school district buoyed national protest organizers, who are hoping that the demonstrations will be the largest on climate in the country’s history, with at least 800 planned across the 50 states. They expressed hope that other districts around the country would follow suit.
    “Holy smokes, this thing could get HUGE,” Jamie Henn, a founder of the climate action organization 350.org, said on Twitter after the decision was announced by New York City’s Department of Education…

    But many critics — ranging from climate-change deniers to people who argue for a less radical approach to fighting climate change — said Mayor Bill de Blasio was using school attendance policy to promote a political aim. The New York Post’s editorial board called the decision “out-and-out government sponsorship of a particular point of view.”…
    As of Monday afternoon, many other large districts in the country were debating what position to take. A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Unified School District said officials were “still finalizing our plans.” In the smaller Cambridge, Mass., City Council members on Tuesday will discuss a motion to excuse students…

    Demonstrators as young as 9 had already turned up to greet the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg when she arrived last month by an emissions-free yacht in New York Harbor. Greta has inspired Friday student protests in at least 100 countries…
    The Education Department will send guidelines to schools on Tuesday, encouraging them to hold discussions “about the impact of change and the importance of civic engagement,” said a spokesman, Will Mantell…

    Teachers will also receive age-appropriate resources on climate change that are part of a curriculum already adopted by many schools, as well as materials on historical student protests and information on the impact of environmental issues.

    Some 600 medical professionals across the country have also signed a virtual “doctor’s note” encouraging teachers to excuse students on the grounds that climate change is dangerous to their and others’ health…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/nyregion/youth-climate-strike-nyc.html

    71

  • #
    bobl

    I received one of these surveys once, when I asked for a “global warming would be good for society” option they discontinued the interview. So these surveys actually select respondents with the view they want too.

    290

  • #
    AndyG55

    Certainly the RESPONSES to the non-existent problem of “climate change” will have a highly detrimental effect on many economies.

    It already is.

    150

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Too many closed shops and stores here in NovoCastria: Unprecedented.

      The national outlook isn’t that good either.

      Time for all those politicians who have hidden behind the cloak of global warming pseudo nutso theory to face up to the fact that we need real action to straighten out the mess and start Building a nation with hope.

      Farmers shafted over Water, manufacturing sent overseas, schooling at all levels reduced to below third world status and guided by UNIPCCC psychobabble.

      A revolution is needed.

      KK

      KK

      160

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Now, now, Keith, kalm down.

        I’ve been noticing the number of shops closing for over a year (well west of you in SA). When a ‘local’ shop shuts down after 28 years you have to wonder how bad conditions are. When a prominent site cannot apparently be rented for over 2 years you wonder why? And whether another “recession we had to have” is coming.
        Also the rise in electricity charges despite claims that “renewables are cheaper”. So are more and more people. And they are another factor driving shops out of business.
        Who knows? Within a year or two our politicians might notice this, although there is a shortage of State and Federal elections coming, so it might take some time before they wake up.
        We don’t need a revolution, all that does is change those in charge. We need a wholesale replacement of current politicians by people who live in reality and aren’t fixated on behaving like 5TH form children.

        140

  • #
    Latus Dextro

    Jo, your links to the YouGov survey do not appear to work.

    I posted this comment on the YouGov survey this morning at 0832 NZST. Fortunately, I have the screen shot.
    “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by YouGov UK.”

    It never was. It was blocked and has been deleted from Disqus.

    The Green Trojan horse is being exposed for what it is. No where here do I see a definition of “climate change,” a handy UNFCCC unscientific, unfalsifiable term designed to mean all things to all people and only one thing to the UN where “climate change” refers solely to the direct and indirect human influence upon land usage and atmospheric composition.
    There is no way to zero or mitigate “climate change” ever, unless humanity is expunged from the face of Gaia, thereby providing an ideological justification in perpetuity to impose global administration “for the good of the planet.”

    “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue lies in the equality of misery.” Winston Churchill

    As free speech disappears, so the time of pitch forks draws closer.

    180

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      Jo, your links to YouGov survey 2019 take one back here.
      ————
      OK, boy I needed the proof reading help today. Tired and rushed. Thanks. – Jo

      40

      • #

        Latus, your comment is posted here above in the blog. Well done for keeping a copy.
        Yes, Free speech indeed. “Yougov” is not your gov.

        130

        • #
          Latus Dextro

          Thank you Jo.
          More and more, comments are disappearing. Screen capture is a useful tool, an almost default act these days.
          The censorious globalist Left (UN et al), the perfect illustration of a political ostrich.
          Therein lies their end.

          30

    • #

      “As free speech disappears, so the time of pitch forks draws closer.”

      The political left in the US is colluding with tech giants and the MSM to eliminate both free speech and the right to bear arms both of whose reasons to exist are to remind government that the ultimate power resides with the people. The election of Trump demonstrated the same thing as the political left became apoplectic that their ‘chicken in every pot’ rhetoric hasn’t obfuscated their true agenda of excessive regulations, high taxes, open borders and expensive energy.

      50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Just looking at the survey above something stands out.

    Just look at the countries at the top and compare their “national temperature ranges”.

    Does opinion correlate with temperature?

    I wonder why snow bound countries are too worried about overheating.
    KK

    100

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Gotta love graphs.

    The number of fires and who lights them by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

    https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab059

    - over 50% of bushfires being caused by man (some estimate the rate is more like 87%), it is expected that the incidence of bushfires would increase as population increases and more people encroach on bushland.

    Just 6% of bushfires are due to natural causes according to the Australian Institute of Criminology

    120

  • #
    Latus Dextro

    Slightly off topic, but only slightly.
    Michael Mann continues to spectacularly unravel to the delight of all in general and Tony Heller in particular.
    Wounded Michael Mann Lashes Out
    The narrative is imploding into its own ideologically fuelled black hole of desperation.

    130

  • #
    William

    I drove through kilometre after kilometre of global warming today. Thick white snow as far as the eye could see. All around Goulburn was Winter wonderland and I have seen nothing like it in several decades driving between Sydey and Canberra.

    140

    • #
      Adaminaby Angler

      Snow is a normal, annual occurence in these parts, actually. Down to about 700 m AMSL, 34.5° S (i.e. Goulburn), snow can be expected to fall every year; whether it be frequent, infrequent, heavy, or light. Farther south at my latitude (35°-36° S), snow-levels can be expected down to only 500 m AMSL every year—and this year, the snow-levels have dropped to an astonishing 200 m AMSL at 35° S (i.e. Cootamundra, Tumut, Gundagai)—with multiple, heavier snowfalls in Yass, Young, and Burrinjuck (400-500 m AMSL).

      Of course, the snow this year had paled in comparison to July 1965 and especially July 1900 and 1901—whereby the plains straddling Condobolin (200 m, 33° S) were snow-laden. Winters and summers are not as extreme as they used to be in the 19th Century, but that is all about to change with the coming Grand Solar Minimum.

      20

  • #

    Academic surveys and push polls (there should be a diff, there never is) are a scourge.

    Look at that phrasing: “partly responsible”.

    If I eat half your large packet of jellybeans or if I eat three or four of your jellybeans (maybe just the black ones) I am “partly responsible” for the loss of your jellybeans. Why, I might have eaten two thirds of your jellybeans, including the luscious orange and pink ones, before I got into “mainly responsible” territory.

    While surveys would be worthless even with adequate phrasing because of everything else that’s wrong with them, there is something about the very job which renders the survey-taker incapable of asking useful questions in clear language.

    This is the way a civilisation ends. Not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with…

    Answer: TRUE/FALSE or choose A) B) C) D) (X in box, blue or black pen only.)

    140

  • #

    Anyone know what happened to that UN survey, that had climate change dead last in the list of things people were concerned about?
    It was widely reported in climate realist circles, but seems to have been disappeared.

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    It’s very odd. Even in most skeptical Denmark, the lowest of all respondents at 46% think (man made) Climate Change/Global Warming is real and significant. That’s an incredibly high number for nonsense. And 94% of Indians. Why? I can find nothing right about ‘the science’. No IPCC prediction has been right in 31 years.

    Nothing has changed which would be even noticeable on an old thermometer. Headline hottest year ever records are being set by 0.004C in an average. No city drowns each year from the 80C change winter to summer in so much of Northern Europe? Why should 1C make a measurable difference? All the sea ice melts every year, even at the North Pole and Siberia and Canada melt without any disaster, every year. It’s all nonsense, science garbage by rent seeking pseudo scientists, suburban ecologists and snail fanciers.

    Why would 94% of Indians allegedly believe in it? Are they banning plastic bags? No.

    And more than half the population in every country on the planet? Is there a second April Fool’s day?

    I call shenanigans on this survey.

    120

    • #
      TdeF

      And 97% of all scientists agree, presumably.

      It’s really odd when only a negligible part of the CO2 increase is man made. And that’s assuming it has any effect anyway.

      You cannot deny something which is not true. In real science, you have to prove things and that beyond any doubt.

      100

    • #
      Yonniestone

      It could be that Rajendra Kumar Pachauri resonates with the population through their MSM?

      50

    • #

      I wonder who in India were asked for the survey. I would suggest the over half or 600 million people have never heard of so-called climate change. My guess is that the no one in India was asked and the survey was done on the internet of the small fraction of those who can use the internet and know English as those at call centres who are taught to be polite and politically correct. I have been to India consulting at an industrial site where I talked to ordinary workers. I have also traveled to China and suggest that figure is rubbish. The Chinese at Universities and in the political elite know that so-called climate change is a political scam and a way to screw the west. However, none of the ordinary Chinese (more than 800 million) have a clue.
      I suggest even the survey for Australia is rubbish. I suggest that 80% of those over 55 know about past bushfires, droughts and floods. Brisbane had people killed in floods in 1974 and 2011. I saw the results of the 1967 Hobart fires in which many died and my wife’s grandmother’s house close to the Derwent River was burnt to the ground.

      50

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    So respondents from rich countries care less about the climate damage caused by their lifestyle, than those respondents who are copping that damage, and without access to the benefits that lifestyle brings.

    Mind you, replace ‘climate change’ with ‘clean water’ or ‘living wage’ and the distribution would be the same.

    Does anyone else see the the danger in relying on such surveys to inform your opinion?

    27

    • #
      AndyG55

      There is NO “climate change” damage.

      Just normal climate variability and events

      Thanks for again REINFORCING that there is no evidence of any human influence on global climate

      If the money TOTALLY WASTED on the “climate change” farce and UNRELIABLE non-supply of electricity had been spent on clean water and sanitation in third world countries, the world would be a far better place.

      But you and your trougher mates JUST DON’T CARE, do you…

      “renewables” MUST COME FIRST, right PF.

      They

      91

    • #
      AndyG55

      “and without access to the benefits that lifestyle brings”

      Yep, the World Bank and their AGW cronies are DENYING third world stable reliable electricity, by refusing to fund coal fired electricity.

      DENYING the third world the benefits that a coal powered lifestyle brings.

      GREAT to see you are gradually getting the picture straight in your mind, PF,
      and realising just how despicable and cruel the AGW agenda really is.

      81

    • #
      AndyG55

      “climate damage caused by their lifestyle”

      What a moronically stupid thing to say.

      You were of course talking about Al Gore and di Caprio etc etc.. all the AGW chieftains flying about the world in their private jets to gab to each other in attention-seeking sliminess.

      All the “climate” glitterati jetting by their 30,000′s to conferences in luxury hotels and venues..

      Those are the people you were referring to, right, PF???

      81

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Does anyone else see the the danger in relying on such surveys to inform your opinion”

      Well YOU certainly aren’t informed.

      81

    • #
      el gordo

      Surveys are junk unless they ask the right questions.

      61

    • #

      “So respondents from rich countries care less about the climate damage …”

      No. Rich countries tend to have more people who can think for themselves and readily see through political deception and misinformation. Unfortunately, rich countries also have more who feel guilty about their own success, especially those who haven’t had to work very hard relative to the success they’ve achieved, for example, celebrities. Latching on to the fake climate change narrative, and other ‘feel good’ left causes, is how they can signal their virtue and feel better about themselves without having to exert any real effort.

      60

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Point 1: public opinion polls have a minute to irrelevant relationship to what actually is.
    Point 2: actual critical thinking is nowhere taught on earth.
    Point 3: both sides of the argumentation speak in Package Deals* with critical details left to the imagination of the reader.
    Point 4: opinion polls are so constructed that they cannot be correctly interpreted no matter how they are answered.
    Point 5: opinion polls cannot be answered correctly because all are of the form “Do you still beat your wife? Answer: yes or no.”

    Conclusion: if you run your life according to the reported results of opinion polls, you don’t have a chance NO MATTER WHO DOES THE OPINION POLL. They were and are specifically designed to be that way so the issue is never really addressed.

    * Package Deal: an invalid conceptual construction where the term used to label the concept is ambiguous, states nothing specific, and contains many contradictory unstated assumptions. You cannot hold a correct, self consistent, and coherent with reality position with respect to the concept. It is a rhetorical tool intended to confuse, misdirect, and obliterate legitimate concepts so that one cannot possibly think or communicate about the concept. It is the most basic catch 22 form of intellectual intimidation there is because it is neither correct nor incorrect as in “not even false”. It is used by both sides of every important discussion so that the discussion cannot be held.

    Exercise left for the student: Why is it that we have had many decades of discussion about climate change, millions of words written about something called “climate data”, and trillions of wealth expended to solve the “problem” and we are further away from a solution than when we started?

    60

  • #
    Russell

    How does such a survey compensate for contacted people who are skeptics and don’t want to answer the silly questions?
    They simply ask more people until they get the number of respondents they need to make “statistical significance”.
    Does anyone else see the folly of this methodology?
    I’ll give you a hint – it’s rubbish like most modern political polling that claim “significance”.
    And yet companies still make money conducting these polls.
    I blame the modern education system – you get a pass in maths as long as you can add up.

    110

    • #
      el gordo

      They are starting from the premise that global warming is real, which of course is a fallacy. So all questions are structured on a big lie.

      81

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        *gasp*

        You mean all these years the nonsense piled on top of foolishness was really that?

        70

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        It might not be that simple. I suggest that “climate change” is used because if temperature goes up, down, or stays the same but something else changes, it is all included. Something that includes all possibilities really includes nothing because it cannot be right or wrong. It is not even false.

        They (whom ever) feel they cannot possibly be in error and therefor don’t have to prove their case. Yet, the error is the position as held from the get go. Sadly, that distinction is much to subtle for most true believers to perceive. They jump into the middle of the bottomless abyss of the arbitrary – has no connection to reality – and argue endlessly about everything and nothing.

        70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Russell:

      There is the reverse approach. Delete the answers that aren’t exactly what you want e.g. the on-line survey about AGW with ~3,160 replies which was whittled down to 79, although 2 refused to go further.
      Still 75 gave the “right answer” out of 77 and that was good enough to claim “97% of the World’s best scientists agree”.
      That the actual percentage was less than 2.5%,
      That those in agreement were hardly the World best scientists,
      And that quite a few of them weren’t even qualified
      were all ignored in the rush to forge a consensus.

      50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Any poll with the words climate change in it may as well been conducted by Tammany Hall.

    90

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Lest we forget – the UN is a *private* organization with pretty much zero accountability for what it does.

    The problem is that our gormless pollies repeatedly give this monstrosity real money so it can pedal its marxist drivel at our expense.

    Cut off the UN funding, it withers and dies, as it rightfully should.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    As for survey size, 1000 people in Australia would be a problem but 1,000 people in 30 countries is only 30 people a country!
    Really, China and India, only 30 people each? That’s one in 45 million. One person in Shanghai representing the opinions of Shanghai which is itself less than 1% of China.

    Many of the other countries are not that big and get 30 people and that’s a guess. It’s nonsense, before you even get to how they were chosen. I love how they give answers then to 1%. Even if you were checking random samples, you would not get to 1% until you reached 10,000 people.

    As for 1% say the climate is not changing. That’s ridiculous. I would love to know where exactly has the climate changed noticeably and beyond normal variation? Surveys are not science and we have found from elections in Australia, the UK and US, often they bear no resemblance to reality.

    70

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Dear friends.
    The vast majority of surveys are as bunko as climate change itself, in that the data is thoroughly cooked.
    Finding a properly constructed and worded double blind survey with a statistically valid design is a rare as find a properly sited surface station.
    The vast majority of survey results get a momentary “thinking fast” answer to a question designed to elicit an answer of a particular
    flavor to serve an ulterior motive (from the book, ‘Thinking Fast and Slow” by Kahneman).
    The classic proofs are from the relatively early days of television when the dominant survey company had both a population of homes with actual meters,
    homes with diaries, and public surveys. For reasons that relate to our PC culture today, and order of magnitude more people claimed to watch Public Broadcasting
    (‘educational TV’) than actually did.

    As has been pointed out in this blog & other, far more people will profess faith in the ‘science of climate change’ (undefined, of course) than will personally put out a nickel or
    a pence to make it happen.

    It is a classic tenant of the ism’s of the world that what ordinary people think, as evidenced by the way we act, is hopelessly gauche and unsophisticated, not to mention dysfunctional and digesting. This is why we require our leftist betters to tell us what to think and how to act, we are clearly unable to manage our own thoughts and lives.

    It is usual the in the poll that matters most, how we vote as consumers in a free market, the market consequences of ‘climate change’ are huge losers. Without the diversion of
    our funds by unscrupulous pols who mostly lied about their intentions to gain office, the cash flow into ‘green’ stuff for climate change would be negligible. In contrast, note
    the serious voluntary payment for public health endeavors, where the issues are pretty obvious and the results are real (except in certain woke cities, where serious backsliding is happening, leading to amazement that a city government will spend millions on imaginary problems, little nothing on real ones, and remain in power?)

    One thing never done is polling on the assertions implicit in the opinions. One probably can’t, with simple minds answering simple questions on a hit and run basis.
    Do you believe we are capable of managing the climate? Do you believe the government can mange the climate. Do you know the ‘the temperature of the earth’ means.

    Details of trying to rate the likelihood of an absolute on a Lickert scale by the inattentive are a good place to stop carping about this.

    But I’ll bet we’d get similar results, with almost as much meaning, if we asked : Do the horns of unicorns give off a faint golden aura when viewed in he dark?

    They do, of course.

    60

  • #
    pat

    the latest big story (nicely timed for the Climate Summit).
    google result shows USA Today had this headline, which matches the url:

    Global warming: Earth had second-hottest summer on record

    but they updated and got with the program, as this is the headline everywhere:

    16 Sept: USA Today: It was the hottest summer on record for the Northern Hemisphere
    by Doyle Rice
    Published and updated 16 Sept 2019
    The Northern Hemisphere just sweltered through its hottest summer on record, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday.

    A whopping 90% of the population of the Earth lives in the Northern Hemisphere, where all five of its warmest summers have occurred in the past five years.

    For the planet as a whole, the three months were the second-hottest on record. (June-August is winter in the Southern Hemisphere). Only 2016 was warmer, NOAA said (LINK). The overall trend is one of heat…
    Records go back to 1880…
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/16/global-warming-earth-had-second-hottest-summer-record/2342104001/

    51

  • #
    Ruairi

    Climate surveys can be a Green aid,
    To make people concerned and afraid;
    Questions biased with dread,
    Of dire warming ahead,
    And that all climate-change is man-made.

    40

  • #
    pat

    open access…read all:

    17 Sept: Australian: Pollies cold on climate, despite hype
    Despite a global push for more action on climate change, momentum has drained away.
    By Graham Lloyd
    This month was supposed to be the one in which a global push for higher ambition on climate change took flight…
    Few world leaders are lining up to deliver what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had in mind when he called them together for a New York conference to boost ambition. The New York meeting, scheduled for September 23, was conceived as a show of global defiance at US President Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Paris Agreement.

    Rather than a competition for more robust action, as was intended, the New York agenda looks deflated.
    Key world leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, will not be attending. Instead China will send a lower-ranking official, and there are mixed signals about whether the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emissions nation will offer to do more…

    A pushback is building in Germany against higher energy prices and the impact of strict new emissions regulations on a struggling car industry. Renewable energy investment across much of Europe has stalled…
    The EU admits it is not on track to meet its 2030 target of a 40 per cent emissions cut on 1990 levels…

    In Australia there is little mood politically for greater action.
    The federal opposition has all but surrendered its pre-election target to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030…
    Ironically, the 45 per cent target being abandoned by Labor is what Guterres has been calling for in New York from all nations…

    The latest, and unexpected, shot against fearmongering was issued by World Meteorological Organisation secretary-general Petteri Taalas to Finnish newspaper Talouselama.
    Taalas told the paper while climate scepticism had become less of an issue, the challenge was now coming from “doomsters and extremists”…
    “This resembles religious extremism,” Taalas told Talouselama…

    Green energy is killing by kindness…
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/politicians-are-going-cold-on-climate/news-story/6140d2000e14e072dec860deb53bfcc7

    50

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Survey responses are NOT helpful when folks know so little about the topic.
    Many people are unaware of the things done or planned by “their betters” in their name to save the climate. For example, ask people if they know large banks will not help finance the power project in the poor country because it will use coal? The World Bank (what’s that they ask) is the worst offender. They care very little for poor people.

    Do people know nuclear power is the only way of actually accomplishing CO2 reduction? [Every year more people die from falling down stairs than from nuclear power – ban stairs!]
    Why are the big banks NOT insisting on building nuclear and putting the money there for the purpose?

    Last week, a CAGW believer told me he could see a use for nuclear as a “bridge fuel.” My question: A bridge to what?
    the bridge metaphor

    80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    And another thing:
    Our “betters” have told us of many dire things (exciting horrors) about to happen. Then those things do not happen so a new not-happening event is floated, and it too sinks like the RMS Titanic.
    There is no better way to lose trust than to be caught fibbing.

    60

  • #
    Michael

    I am one that believes humans are at least 50% responsible for global warming. 20% through data manipulation and poor weather station placement, 25% through urbanisation and the heat island effect, 5% through pollution changing the Earth’s reflective abilities – such as a slight darkening of ice sheets with particulate pollution and maybe another 5% for pumping serious gases into the air such as Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) which is 23,500 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to warming, with no added benefit like plant food (CO2). That said, of course I don’t really know, its only my belief.

    30

  • #
    John

    My view is that humans are partly (or mainly) responsible but that the climate catastrophe movement is a serious worry. All the people I hear going on about it are these stupid lefties who are using it as a means to push their hare-brained collectivist politics. Never once have I heard one explain how this magical new world they promise is going to materialise and be in any way superior to the civilisation we have.

    20

    • #
      John

      …I should add I think they badly exaggerate and twist the data to push their catastrophic world view. I think the reality of climate change is far more modest than these crazy predictions.

      10

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I tend to see it as partly an urban rural split. These old farmers are always watching the weather, an unaffected by the heat urban effect, they are so less likely to fall for this JIve. Last time I was visiting family in New Zealand none of the old guys had fallen for this story.

    20

  • #
    Douglas Proctor

    Looks like a previous study, where the more knowledgeable about the issue a person is, the more skeptical he is: only 10% of Danes agree people are the main cause?

    10

  • #
    Zane

    Most people are scientifically clueless anyway.

    00

  • #
    bobn

    Bizarre that they can claim that Northern hemisphere had its first or second (bullshit either way) hottest summer when no country seems to have recorded a hottest summer. I guess NOAA forgot to add ‘hottest summer according to our computer model games’ not according to ‘unadjusted’ thermometers. The USA has had a cool summer and one of the coldest 12 month stretches on record. But the North American continent with 1000′s of thermometer readings cant be given the same weight as imagined readings in the North atlantic and Pacific where there are bugger all readings.
    What a joy to live in the age of anti-science and computer witchcraft. Statistics never prove, they only indicate. Often only the bias of their construction.
    Did you know there’s a 99.6% correlation in the USA between numbers of University undergraduates and number of injuries sustained by falling televisions?

    00

  • #

    [...] Conversation is publicly funded like the ABC.They have completely banned dissenting voices. Still over half of the people don’t go along with alarmism. Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedIn This entry was [...]

    00