Friday
Jun112010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill 40% say AGW is exaggerated
Jun 11, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh From the Mail
Global warming scepticism is rising, a major poll shows.
It found that 78 per cent of Britons believed the world's climate was changing, compared to 91 per cent five years ago.
The Ipsos Mori survey of 1,822 people for Cardiff University found 40 per cent believed the seriousness of global warming was exaggerated.
But the vast majority believed in climate change and that human activity was to blame.
Only 18 per cent thought it was mainly or entirely caused by natural processes.
Reader Comments (15)
82% still support the IPCC view then despite their litany of lies. This is NOT good news.
I would, however, like to see how the questions were phrased.
Given we've had 20 years or so consistent brainwashing it is suprising that anyone is challenging the party line.
I think the world is split into three main groups of people, those who want to control others lives, those who don't and those who don't care either way. Historically the "controllers" have jumped on a consistent theme whis is "humans are intrinsically bad and if they don't stop being bad something awful will happen to them". Christianity and Islam spring to mind. The "controllers" (Greenpeas, WWF, Communists, Socialists etc.) are continually looking for evidence the "humans are bad" in this case global warming has been a godsend. Victory seemed within their grasp at Copenhagen and was cruelly snatched from them at the last minute, but they won't stop and when they disappear they will be replaced by others "controllers" are a force of nature, they're the modern day roundheads/puritans, they have views on every aspect of your life and they want to impose them on you. Global warming has given them the hook to hang their hat on.
I meant Greenpeace, not Greenpeas, although the slip might be freudian.
Another statistic would be to check how many think there is some AGW AND it warrants another tax, institutes, quangoes , regulation and yet another diverse crowd to populate indefinitely the meme plazza to pour their liberal retard froth over our allready laden taxoverpaid heads.
Why don't they ask people if they even understand the science behind all this, or if their whole view on the issue is taken directly from the media. I would like to know how many people who believe in CAGW have only taken the idea on someones word.
Same poll, different spin.
"Confidence in climate science remains strong, poll shows"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/confidence-climate-science-poll
Ipsos Mori detailed results:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/climate-change-still-high-on-publics-agenda-topline.pdf
Always hard to gauge what people really think.
Q42 says that 59% have "personally noticed ... signs of climate change during your lifetime"
Q43 says that 6% have noticed hotter summers and a different 6% have noticed colder summers. Ho hum. That's 12% who've noticed climate change.
Some of the answers may be valid - but a lot are just invalid and meaningless.
Like Q40: "Do you think you will or won’t use carbon off-setting in the future.." why not ask if the person currently or recently does this. Then follow up with a question to test if it's true like "which of these offset schemes did you use" and include some fake schemes.
Jack --if there is 40plus questions in the interview , I would question the whole survey. For the average member of the public that is a very long questionaire and as you point out there has to be questions that repeat ( or maybe slightly different) and therefore are confusing to the reader. If it was survey of "experts" in a field then that is a different matter.
Its a long face to face interview, to a trapped interviewee who probably just fires off a string of politically 'acceptable' responses in the hope of finishing as fast as possible. Too much scope for the interviewee to make the running.
I don't know what kind of people took the survey but most people (friends, family, colleagues and strangers) I've fallen into conversation with about the weather and climate change (an inevitability in the UK), think that AGW is the mother liquor of bullshit.
An abberation? Or a true reflection of what the public really believes?
"I meant Greenpeace, not Greenpeas, although the slip might be freudian"
Greenpriests maybe?
I meant interviewer in my last sentance.
Q. Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Q. Does climate change?
Q. Do you still beat your wife?
Hundreds of serious scientific papers in the TAR & AR4 stating that some plants, animals & some microecosystems will have an adverse reaction to an increase in temperature followed by an ancillary tag line of "and we 'believe' it is 'likely' that post industrial age human activity is the cause" carries no weight with me. This is especially true when I hear the deafening silence of similar reports that say many flora & fauna will prosper in an increased CO2 and warmer atmosphere. Similar studies can be done to examine the effects of a lower temperature climate on flora & fauna.
I demand the chicken littles present actual quantifiable evidence of adverse effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions..
The normal distribution curve of human intelligence shows us that half the population are sub normal and with the UK education system in its present state they will not recognise all the letters in AGW let alone know what it means.
Then take the top 50%, my daughter is highly intelligent, had a financial management job in Ford at european level before settling down to raise a family. She does not read the newspapers, likes X factor and has no grasp of anything to do with AGW. What can you do?