on 02-04-2014 11:47 AM
THE good sense and informed self-interest — the wisdom of (Aussie) crowds — shines through in a scientific poll from Galaxy Research on attitudes to Global Warming (sic).
The poll result can be captured in two conclusions. We don’t believe it’s necessarily happening — to coin a phrase; we are mostly climate sceptics now. And therefore, we sure as hell ain’t prepared to pay real dollars to ‘stop it’.
Sorry, I should have written that Galaxy polled attitudes to ‘Climate Change (in the absence of Global Warming)’.
That’s of course, the missing Global Warming that was predicted as undeniably certain by all the science-is-certain experts — who are now all united in scouring the planet to find where the hell it’s gone.
They seem to have settled on the deep oceans — a theory which, conveniently, can’t be checked, because there’s no historical data.
We don’t know deep ocean temperatures even 50 far less 200 or more years ago. Captain James Cook might have roamed the globe, but he unaccountably forgot to take the temperature thousands of feet below his Endeavour, along the way.
The Galaxy Poll was commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs ‘think tank’. That will immediately have the grasping-at straws warmists dismissing it as denialist propaganda.
But the poll was done by Galaxy, not the IPA. It scientifically and rigorously assesses attitudes. Indeed, if anything the questions should favour the warmist opinion.
The easiest thing in the world is for someone to demonstrate they are ‘right thinking’ by endorsing ‘Climate Change ne Global Warming’.
The second easiest thing is to tell a pollster that of course they would be prepared to spend money to save the planet by stopping it; as opposed to having to hand over real cash right then.
Yet the poll which has been conducted since 2010 has shown very little change; and provides very little joy to the warmist cause, despite its ratcheting up of its ‘end of the world’ and ‘climate change is already here in your street and inside your house and it’s nasty’ rhetoric.
We are getting another dose of that rhetoric right now with the release yesterday of the UN IPCC’s final draft of its fifth report.
We’ve been getting warm-ups of the ‘end is nigher’ in the pages of Climate Central Australia — The Age. This included yesterday a spread across p2-3, warning of catastrophic devastation to be wreaked on your favourite cup of coffee.
No doubt today’s Age will be effectively an edition of the Climate Apocalypse Daily, plus some briefs on the real news.
Yet despite all this relentless (climate) fear and (carbon) loathing, pumped out not just by the Fairfax dailys, their ABC, and indeed also the NewsCorp papers, despite their supposed denalism, the Australian public remained stolidly unmoved.
In 2010, the Galaxy poll showed 35 per cent endorsement of the proposition that “the world is warming and man’s emissions are to blame”. The latest poll showed it had edged up only to 37 per cent.
Yes, this was significantly higher than those endorsing the proposition that “the variation in global temperature is just part of the natural cycle of nature”; which had dipped from 26 per cent in 2010 to 24 per cent now. The really significant number was the unchanged 38 per cent endorsing the proposition “there is conflicting evidence and I’m not sure what the truth is”.
By any objective — as opposed to theologically warmist — assessment, this is the rational attitude. Both in response to the reality of the highly, at least, conflicted evidence; and the huge costs of doing something to stop a problem that might not exist.
And in the specific Australian case, we could not stop anyway. Cut our emissions by 100 per cent; that is to say, close the country down; and we would cut global and indeed Australian warming — sorry, ‘Climate Change’ — by effectively zero.
So the poll shows a clear majority of 62 per cent of Australians are either sceptical or denialist. As a consequence, we are increasingly unwilling to throw money at ‘the problem (sic)’.
In 2010 some 15 per cent of poll respondents were prepared to pay $1000 or more a year in higher taxes and utility charges to fight global warming. Now only 11 per cent are.
There is a very, very clear plurality of 41 per cent that are willing to pay nothing, zero, zip — who, my comment, presumably want the carbon tax to go; and that it should be followed quick smart out the door by the expensive rort of wind and solar power.
This is up from 35 per cent in 2010.
Now true, about a similar number — 43 per cent — were prepared to pay between $100 and $500 a year. But that was down from 48 per cent.
And 25 per cent were in the clearly token category of being willing to pay $300 or less. That’s to say, they would be prepared to give up just one coffee a week to avert the very climate catastrophe that, among other things, The Age has warned us, will wreak such havoc on their coffee drinking.
Is The Age surprised by the lack of public enthusiasm? It shouldn’t be, on its ‘don’t mention the war’ approach to the symbolic pointlessness of the latest “Earth Hour,” of which it and its Sydney sibling used to be so enthusiastic about.
The IPA poll was conducted over the weekend. It was also the weekend of ‘Earth Hour’. Yet there wasn’t a single mention of it in either The Age or the SMH yesterday. Not even in one of the other global warming stories.
The Age had room for a largish pic of naked bike riders aimed at, well, showing a bunch of exhibitionists — and indeed, a portfolio of pics online.
But it couldn’t find room to celebrate and encourage those prepared to go without light for one whole hour on a Saturday night of all nights, to save the planet.
on 07-04-2014 08:26 AM
@soul_art wrote:A rational person, would state their opinion, hear others opinions, decide to either stick to their opinion or learn more and that would be that.
An irrational person wouldn't accept that others think differently to themselves and would state their opinion over and over and over trying to make others agree with them.
Rationality went out the window after dinking the Kool Aid.
Over 80 or more scrollers and links? no social awareness.
It wouldn't be so bad if it stayed on the warmists thread, nobody cares, but it spreads on every thread.
on 07-04-2014 09:21 AM
on 07-04-2014 09:57 AM
@izabsmiling wrote:your posts and demands are getting incredibly repetative and disruptive to the discussion .
The evidence is not mine.
It's been provided on these boards as requested by you over and over ,by many posters,including myself over the 3 years I have posted.
If that doesn't satisfy your own personal idea of evidence there is nothing more that anyone can do to help you.So continually harrassing other members for more evidence is quite obviously pointless on your behalf.Do you or don't you know that yourself ?
Unless you can prove science wrong and PROVE Climate Change doesn't exist and PROVE that man hasn't been contributing to a big way over the past 150 years (since the Industrial Revolution) ...I think it's time for you to stop asking for evidence ,hounding members and then refusing to see it and calling other posters who provide what you ask for liars.
Then post your proof.........you are stating something is fact........where are those facts?
It looks very strange and disingenuous that you are refusing to provide information you say you have........especially when you seem
very willing to do so on every other topic....,
If you so strongly believe that man made c02 is causing global warming..... you will post your evidence.....
Saying others have posted it is nonsense.....and another lie.........
on 07-04-2014 10:08 AM
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:Still nothing from the Alarmists..........poor alarmists.......
Sigh.
What is it exactly that you want to see? 2 articles? 1000 articles?
Does this help?
or this?
studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu-ClimateChangePrediction-climate_sea_level_chg02.pdf
or this?
The real information to be found on climate change is not on the internet or through blogs. It is by reading heavily cited academic references. I suggest you try by reading any of the books written by Myles Allen or Syukuru Manabe. That will be a good starting point to proper, evaluated scientific research.
BTW - and unlike the article in the OP, the statements in these articles are direct sources and properly analysed and reviewed. They are not (as is the case with the article in the OP) a summary of findings from various articles and authors of same opinions only.
Receiting the theory is not evidence........ if you believe it is provided in one of your links.... cut and past the article and tell me exactly
which paragraph you believe is the answer........not one Alarmist has managed it yet!
on 07-04-2014 10:15 AM
on 07-04-2014 10:19 AM
"But when it comes to climate change, there is no demonstrated causal connection between (A) an extra 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of air, and (B) any resulting observed change in weather or climate.
There are theories of how the former might impact the latter. But that’s all." Dr Roy Spencer........
If you have more than opinions and theories..... the WORLD.........would love to see it!
....
on 07-04-2014 10:21 AM
No global warming for nearly 18 years.
Times are not easy for true-believers just now. The RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly for March, just in, shows no global warming at all for 17 years 8 months. This remarkable 212-month period, enduring from August 1996 to March 2014, represents half of the entire 423-month satellite record since it began in January 1979.
Figure 1. The remarkable 212-month absence of global warming, notwithstanding a record rate of increase in CO2 concentration. The Pause – the least-squares trend on the data for the past 17 years 8 months – now extends to just over half the entire 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite record since January 1979.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/
on 07-04-2014 10:24 AM
"As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science’ Dr John Christy
How true........
on 07-04-2014 10:25 AM
You would think that Alarmists would find that to be good news.......
on 07-04-2014 10:34 AM
This thread has now been locked due to the continued interpersonal disputes.