It’s another useless question written in a another pointless poll.
Define “climate change”: does it mean the climate doesn’t stay the same year after year, or is it code for “man-made global warming”? The term is so overused, so cliched, it is a meaningless part of any survey. Since “partially” means any number greater than zero, technically I’d have to answer that climate change is partly natural and party man-made. So the survey finds that many dedicated skeptics hold the majority opinion, but that’s not the way it’s being reported. With vague questions, this survey is not designed to find out what the population really thinks, it’s there to support media headlines and the propaganda push. A cheap trick to try to convince politicians that “carbon action” is a vote winner, and a ploy to try to demoralize skeptics into thinking they are a small and shrinking part of the community.
It shows, as do many other studies, that only a third of the population believe the IPCC message that all the recent warming is due to man-made emissions. 65% of the population know there is natural component to the way our climate changes, the question that matters is “how much”.
But look out! Fully 32% think that climate change is occurring due only to human activity and not due to any natural variation. It’s as if the orbits of the planets got stuck in a rut in 1945. It’s like the sun finally reached an unchanging equilibrium after four and a half billion years, the continents stood still, the oceans stopped slopping, and the winds stopped shifting. What do we teach people at school?
Perception of Climate Change
Respondents were asked to choose the statement which best reflects their views about the causes of climate change. One third (32%) believe that climate change is occurring due to human activity, while one half (54%) believe that climate change is occurring partially due to human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. One in ten (9%) believe that climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation and few (2%) believe that climate change is not occurring at all. Page 26.
The headlines keep pushing the propaganda “Only 2% of Canadians deny climate change, suggests poll” [CBC]. The aim is to make people with one scientific opinion look like freaks.
He also told CityTVthat the two percent figure is similar to people believing in “little green spacemen” and that the number is still “pretty significant.” He did concede that a study will never have 100 percent. [digitaljournal.com]
The study has a 3% margin of error.
Lucky nearly 90% of the population realizes that CO2 is not flammable, or explosive, and 79% recognise that it is not a water pollutant, but 63% think CO2 is unhealthy.
In order to understand perceptions of carbon dioxide, respondents were asked to choose which of a list of statements they think apply to the gas. Most commonly, six in ten (63%) believe that it is unhealthy, while two in ten (21%) believe that it is a water pollutant.
In other findings about half the population think fossil fuels will still be used to make electricity in 2050. About one quarter think that CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) will help “combat climate change” while more than half think that CCS “represents a safety risk in the future”.
IPAC-CO2 Research Inc. released its findings The study was conducted by Insightrix Research Inc.
Looks like I’m in the 2%.
However, if anyone can convince me that the various climates of this planet have changed within a time frame meaningful to our lifetimes (say 3 or 4 generations), then I’ll change my mind.
10
My studies reveal all weather/climate everywhere lies within the extremes of the last two centuries.
10
Gees, when you think about it, that is a REMARKABLY STABLE climate !!!!!
That is, in fact, a very enlightening statement, worthy of publishing far and wide.
WELL SPOKEN , !!!!!! 🙂
10
Actually, in everyday speech, climate just means terrestrial latitude- it doesn’t change much for any place.
‘Meteorological climate’ has a different meaning and refers to the statistical ensemble of atmospheric condition parameters over a long period (30 years seems to be the preference) for a place or region.
Since various periodical orbital changes of the earth are known to be associated with changes in insolation by latitude of up to 20%, expect climate to be always changing (albeit imperceptibly) as a result.
Catastrophic climate change does happen. The glacials and interglacials are quasi-stable states with the planet subject to switching between over several million years- likely the shifts have driven the evolutionary development of homo sapiens.
Anthropogenic climate change, from the small scale to the synoptic, is becoming well documented: examples are urban heat island, atmospheric brown cloud, land clearing, and icesheet albedo-changing soot effects.
Catastrophic global anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, is an anthropocentric affectation, given the standard of evidence supporting the catastrophist viewpoint.
Polls such as this one, suggesting only 2% of people don’t accept an imminent catastrophic outcome from climate change, are just playing a dishonest shellgame with statistics.
10
Very well said
00
At the end of the younger dryas cooling event the northern hemisphere is believed to have warmed by 7deg C in just a few years.
Last time I checked the largest natural climate forcing changed by 800w/m2 in about 6 hours, just a little larger than the 2w/m2/100years of CO2 forcing
00
I am definitely in the 9%.
Today was colder and windier than yesterday – ergo the climate has naturally changed, for today at least.
11
The odour of CO2 was, ahhhhhhhhh
10
So Bah you deny natural cycles?
Pah stupidly worded poll, with conclusions that cannot be inferred from the responses.
the 54% answer is clearly the correct answer, and whether one was a warmist of skeptic once could answer that with confidence given that the answer carries no indication of whether or not it is something that we should be concerned about.
The 1st nd 3rd answers are also corrrect based upon the wording of the question, as both are valid subset of the correct answer.
“not happening” is incorrect, unless you think we live in a static climate.
“Not sure” is an acceptable answer as the survey is poorly worded.
10
What makes you think that?
This planet has a variety of climates, from polar climates to desert climates to tropical climates etc etc.
Name me a climactic region that has changed in the last 3 or 4 generations Matt.
01
well south west WA has changed to be quite a lot drier over the past 30 odd years. But look in a way I agree… I mean the Qs were already meaningless, but without a timescale then really your “it is not changing” is the same answer as some other bods “changing due to natural cycles”. I mean those cycles do exist, so it is changing, but a change may not actually be noticeable over say 15 years, so the answer depends on a timescale that the reader may or may not impose.
00
Matt, natural changes are part of climate. If there were no changes .. that would be unnatural, VERY unnatural.
Climate, by its very nature is changable.
So NO. Climate is not changing.. it has behaved has it always has. Up and down and all over the place.
00
Sorry Andy – When we describe a places climate it DOES NOT include the entire range of climates that that place has experienced since the dawn of time.
cli·mate
[klahy-mit] Show IPA
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3.
the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.
00
It is easy to construct a question to get the result you want.
00
Even though, for years, I listened to the BBC twice a day whilst on my way to and from work, I was quite unaware that there existed people who were sceptical of the premise that the planet was warming catastrophically due to the gaseous emanations of mankind in producing energy.
I heard a continuous litany of woe and waffle for years before, quite by accident, I happened upon, on the same day (!), both WUWT and joannenova – and what a happy day that was.
It is quite impossible to get one’s head around the fact that, despite the vast resources of academia, the scientific community, backed up by the economic resources of vast entities such as the world’s super-states and the UN, that there is such disparity of opinion on the subject of climate change.
After two and a half years of daily swot on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that a very large portion of the English-speaking world has succumbed to the propaganda and willful disinformation of a vicious and manipulative group of mendicants, aided and abetted by a corrupt and uncaring MSM.
I can’t wait for the grand awakening.
20
It is quite incredible, isn’t it. Where would we be now without that mere handful of individuals who have driven the debate, steadfastly in the face of cacophonous denial & demonisation, by the assembled forces of authority, power & politicised inflluence?
Will we look back on this as the Grand Delusion. That early period of freedom that demonstrates the free world can be its own worst enemy.
No one who has lived through tyranny wants to darken education with accounts of its horrors , yet if those who haven’t lived it cannt recognise it, do we need to lose freedom to value it ?
00
It would not matter if 100% of people believed in global warming a.k.a. climate change. I really couldn’t care less.
But what is important is the fact that whole policies are made by governments. Even that would not be so bad only for the fact that it impinges heavily on economics. This, in turn, affects the average or poorer people. The carbon taxes, subsidies for what looks like the machines from “War Of The Worlds” marching across the landscape and general power cost rises are not funny.
Debates in other science areas such as about string theory and multi verses don’t affect the average person in monetary terms except for some comparably much smaller funds for things like the LHC.
That’s why NON scientists with clout such as Al Gore should be dragged screaming into courts or senate inquiries and TV studios to explain in detail to the Nth degree their reasons for their beliefs.
After all, they are quick to silence non scientists who go against their views. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
20
… and volcanos stopped erupting.
10
and cows stop farting !!!
00
Another thing to look for, with regard to poll bias, is the order of the questions.
The first two questions, include the possibility of human influence. These will tend to harvest the votes of those people who do not read all of the options before deciding.
A proportion of folks will answer yes to the first question that they do not disagree with.
00
Ah! That is a very good point. I had not realized that until you said it. You are spot on.
That makes me feel a lot better. 🙂
00
I just love this part, from the link to the survey, and right at the bottom:
17% know what it is???????
I’ll bet that 0% of the people who drafted the question know what it actually is, and what it actually entails, let alone 17% of the respondents. They may be able to give the simplistic explanation, capture the CO2 and then store it underground. That’s the easy part. Understand what it actually entails, and you quickly realise that it will never be achieved on the scale required.
Tony.
10
Television advertising can inform- like those meal-time TV ads for Crispy Chicken Strips.
If one news report is accurate, the Oxford English dictionary has encouraged people to support action on climate change by reference to climate preservation using Climate Capture and Storage technology.
One can only be so serious about CCS.
00
I suppose it depends on the definition of climate change.
If they mean, “is the calculated global URBAN land temperature changing due to human influence?”.. then sure is.. a mix of UHI and mannipulation of data.
Other than that.. any change is purely natural.
Nothing UNPRECEDENTED is happening !!!
00
As for the second question..
Which kindergarten did they survey ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
or are people REALLY THAT IGNORANT !!!!!
Seeing JB, RC etc.. on this forum,.. I believe some people REALLY ARE that ignorant..
SCARY !!!!
00
CO2 and Death
The usefulness of these surveys is to assess the potential VOTING direction.
They are no reflection on scientific reality as indicated by the response of 63% of the patients who thought that CO was unhealthy.
The undisputed reality is that CO2 is an essential Neuro-regulator and if it was absent from our bloodstream we would lose neurological control and DIE.
This is what occurs when we decide to leave this troubled world.
Cheyne-Stokes breathing pattern is the exact opposite of singing and induces a LOSS of CO2 in the bloodstream leading to alkylosis.
Death ensues within about 30 minutes.
KK
10
Seeing as we breathe out something like 40,000ppm (from memory after a few glasses of red) it is obviously highly dangerous to give mouth to mouth resusitation to save someone’s life.
10
error in line 2
Should read CO2.
CO of course is deadly.
KK
00
As stupid polls go, this poll is really stupid. How can you ask whether CO2 is good or bad without qualification. Personally I wouldn’t mind being asked the question provided I was allowed to slap the interviewer every time they asked a stupid question.
All requests for survey participation should be met with “what is the agenda?”
10
Well I agree that the wording leaves a lot to be desired but it’s hardly surprising that Canadians of all people would think anthropogenic climate change is happening given that the “death spiral” of Arctic ice is on their back door step. Hard to explain that one away with natural cycles.
01
‘Death spiral’ is farcical hyperbole.
Forget the extent or thickness of Arctic ice, they’re not even reliable proxies for temperature, let alone human-induced global warming.
As to temperature (you know, derived from instruments), the CRU data for the Arctic monthly surface air temperature anomaly 70-90 N since January 1900 does show what looks like a natural cycle (the period before c1930 data is unreliable) — possible augmented by some human influence (who knows?).
10
It’s one of the great hoaxes in history, convincing Canadians to be fearful of slightly less sub-freezing temperatures.
It’s akin to flogging free era to Eskimos, sorry, Inuit.
00
Stupid iPhone spellchecker!
That should of course be “freezers”!
00
Earlier I suggested you get a room with Maxine. Now I’m convinced you ARE Maxine.
Death spiral? Can we get a moderator to remove that propaganda charged lie? Please?
00
Not really.
Interesting little item from The West Australian, Saturday May 31, 1947.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/1947%20arctic%20warming.jpg
Apparently the Arctic Circle was in a “death spiral” back then, too.
One can only surmise the Arctic Circle is feline in nature, and has nine lives.
10
28 Aug: San Francisco Chronicle: David R. Baker: Trial run for cap and trade auction
Success or failure could have big implications for California’s fight against climate change, not to mention the state’s fragile economy.
So on Thursday, California officials plan to stage a dress rehearsal…
But carbon markets are fiendishly complex, and changes in the rules can have big effects on the companies involved…
The Air Resources Board has spent years trying to anticipate ways that traders might similarly game the new system. As a result, the board has adopted strict limits on the number of allowances any trader or company can have, so no one can corner the market…
All parties that plan to trade in the allowance auctions must deposit – 12 days in advance – all the money needed to pay for their bids, with Deutsche Bank handling the deposits.
Within 48 hours after the auction, a market-monitoring company will tell the board whether any unusual trading patterns emerged that could reveal manipulation.
There’s also a market surveillance committee made up of experts from Stanford University, UC Berkeley and UC Davis…
To enable a system of trade, a market is organized, which turns carbon credits into a commodity subject to market forces. In such a system, companies have the flexibility to decide whether it is cheaper to reduce their own emissions or to purchase credits. It also allows for wider participation – for example, environmental groups could purchase credits and then retire them…
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Trial-run-for-cap-and-trade-auction-3822652.php
more gobbledegook:
29 Aug: CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Katherine Lake: What a European carbon link means for business
Katherine Lake is Senior Associate within the energy and climate change practice of legal firm Ashurst (formerly Blake Dawson) and used to work within the International Linkages team at the Department of Climate Change
The removal of the floor price means that Australian liable entities will no longer have to pay a surrender charge on international units. This presents significant opportunities in the current carbon market environment. It enables liable entities to purchase eligible international units, while both CERs and EUAs are at record low prices, for use in the carbon price mechanism from 2015-2016. There is nothing preventing Australian liable entities with existing registry accounts in the European registry from purchasing EUAs today and holding these units until they can be surrendered in the Australian scheme.
The low European prices are unlikely to remain for long, as the European Commission is taking measures to increase the price over the short and long term. The upward momentum these developments will give to the price of EUAs means that the EU ETS and the Australian Carbon trading scheme may become linked at the bottom of the market for EUAs. This provides Australian buyers with an opportunity to acquire EUAs at prices significantly below the current floor price. While these units can’t be surrendered in Australia until 2015/16, if the price of EUAs increases between now and 2015, the current EUA price may be significantly below the price compliance buyers will be required to pay on the market in 2015. This may provide liable entities with an arbitrage opportunity…
While a repeal risk still hovers over the Carbon Price Mechanism, purchasing international units (that is, CERs, ERUs and EUAs) minimises the impacts of any repeal on Australian buyers, as these units will be able to be sold on the international market, in the event they can’t be used in Australia under a Coalition Government. There are, in any event, signs (although no formal policy) that a Coalition Government may allow companies to purchase some abatement internationally. Again this suggests there are good opportunities for companies to forward purchase these units, or options over them, now…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/carbon-tax-carbon-price-ETS-Europe-market-pd20120829-XLRXE?opendocument&src=rss
further loss of sovereignty:
28 Aug: Reuters: Stian Reklev: ANALYSIS-CO2 mkt link to drive EU CO2 demand, hit Aus price
(Additional reporting by Michael Szabo; Editing by Andrew Allan)
With the EU the senior partner in the deal, observers said EU climate policy will likely determine
the price of carbon in Australia for years.
“Australia will be a price taker after 2015,” said Tim Jordan, a Sydney-based analyst with Deutsche Bank…
While the new rules will please the EU, which is trying to shore up prices in its market, it will provide less certainty for Australian emitters after the government pulled the A$15 ($15.56, 12.41 euro) price floor it planned to put in place – a necessary condition for the deal.
With European permits currently trading at around A$10, it may be cheaper in the early years for Australia to meet its carbon targets…
“The more international permits that can be used, the less the pressure is to cut emissions here. The 50-percent limit will be used, and emissions could rise,” Paul Bourke with Australian consultancy Reputex told Reuters Point Carbon…
The government had budgeted on selling permits at around A$29 in 2015 and earmarked some of the revenue for investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, but if prices fall to EU levels, revenue will fall by a third.
Prices jumped 3.7 percent to a two-month high as European traders digested the news…
“It’s way too early … Australian firms don’t have handle on what it means to them. They’re not even thinking about buying CERs, a compliance option that’s been on the table for a long time,” said one trader in the EU market.
“Australia won’t be able to absorb the huge surplus of EUAs that would come back into the system at the end of phase 3 under the current backloaded auction proposals.”
RepuTex forecasts that Australia’s carbon emissions are expected to exceed Australia’s cap by 73 million tonnes in 2015-16 and 155 million tonnes in 2019-20, but buyers will only import 36.5 million permits from overseas markets in 2015-16 and 77.5 million in 2019-20.
Tuesday’s announcement was perceived as bad news for demand for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits after the government said developers could only use offsets to account for 12.5 percent of their cap, down from 100 percent…
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/analysis-co2-mkt-link-to-drive-eu-co2-demand-hit-aus-price/
00
some nuggets of truth in Tristan’s latest:
29 Aug: Climate Spectator: Tristan Edis: Can Europe save the carbon market?
Europe knows it has a technological edge in clean energy engineering over the rest of the world. Yes, they may have been slaughtered by the Chinese in manufacturing solar PV. But guess where all the machine tool equipment came from that the Chinese are using to make those solar panels? Europe.
Europe’s wind turbine engineers and their designs are the best by a country mile. Their cars also achieve superior levels of fuel economy for a given level of performance. They may trail Japan on hybrid technology, but they’re not far behind.
Also the EU is a major importer of fossil fuels. And it gets them from places that it doesn’t consider reliable or particularly friendly – Russia, the Middle East and North Africa. Europe has coal but it’s expensive to extract, and contains nasty impurities.
So putting fossil fuels out of business works in two ways for Europe – less imports and more exports…
Yet, as we all know, Europe is mired in an economic morass with deeply indebted governments. The severe recession in Europe has led to a large drop in industrial output and energy consumption that has meant that they’ve banked up a huge amount of surplus EUAs.
According to the European Commission, they now have a surplus equivalent to 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2 out to 2020. That’s enough to cover Australia’s entire emissions trading scheme’s requirements for six years without the Australian government having to issue a single permit of its own! …
The European Commission in combination with the European Parliament has put forward multiple ideas for lifting the price of EUAs…
Poland, keen to maintain and expand its use of its own coal deposits, has been the key blocker…
The Commission will release a report later this year reviewing the functioning of the emissions trading scheme that is expected to recommend some more fundamental structural changes to the scheme.
These are likely to require European Council approval. Current depressed economic conditions suggest obtaining approval for measures that will increase carbon prices will be challenging.
So investors in low carbon assets and technologies have certainly lost something valuable with the abandonment of the floor price, and now need to very closely follow the complex machinations of European politics.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/can-europe-save-carbon-market
00
This survey is actually a big plus for the “realists” because it should uncategorically that the CAGW arguement is based purely and absolutely on total ignorance.
00
It is this ignorance that they RELY on to further their agenda / cause and it is constantly perpetuated by the MSM.
ZERO attempt to educate about the real truth..
00
Why bother surveying people about something that can’t be determined by survey? It’s like asking people if they’re human. Oh wait, some might actually answer “not sure”.
10
There will be no opinion polls and democracy in the new world order being assembled.
This seems to be the big picture of carbon emissions trading.
The UN:
* creates demand by providing CAGW pseudoscience as the basis of national ETS legislation,
* creates the supply by globally certifying carbon sinks,
* regulates price by rigging the caps in the trading system,
* extracts taxes through mandatory UNEP “development program” contributions,
* permits kickbacks to the bankster fascist collaborators via brokerage commissions.
If you are cynical you might even realise that, under these conditions, the UN:
* is capable via national minions of suppressing anyone that protests by not offering free credits or by reclassifying their land and business activity or by withdrawing compensation (ie selective enforcement of rules), and
* is then capable of collapsing the world economy via rigged carbon price and thereby putting many more countries in the position of needing bailout loans that will come from… the banksters and the IMF. Obviously the IMF loans will be conditional on the enforcement of Agenda 21, and (as we have seen in Greece) the bankster loans will be conditional on acquisition of public infrastructure. Every country will then effectively be owned by the UN-Bankster symbiosis.
Even without the aid of cynicism and Murphy’s Law this all points to the same end result: a one world government.
Because the UN is an unelected body it will be a one world tyranny, just as the EU has become.
To run your economy without paying a cent in UN carbon tax there are two ways out: resist the UN takeover, or develop non-carbon energy sources that are actually economically competitive. One of these two can be done now at the stroke of a pen. The other option requires either a decade of solar energy R&D (if it’s even possible) or else another decade of nuclear pork-barrelling and construction. Our EU ETS linkage is scheduled for 2015 and our current coal-fired electricity output is projected to fall short of demand a year later, so our clock is ticking. We don’t have a decade, we have 3 years.
Does anyone have a pen?
00
IPAC-CO2 Research Inc. aim is to ” … build the public’s trust in Carbon Capture and Storage”. So another incidence of the PR pandemic?
The confusion in Q7 is understandable given the corruption of the terms “climate” and “change”.
I find Q9 more disturbing.
63% of the carbon-based life forms participating in the survey think CO2 is unhealthy? Bit of a mind-bender eh.
Question to ask a decarboniser:
“Would you be alarmed if the present level of CO2 went up to 450 – 500 ppm?”
I tried this recently. The response was “yes” followed by mutterings, apparently about who to blame if it happened.
Next question was “Do you realise that around here, atmospheric CO2 goes up to at least 450ppm every day after sunset, often peaks to 500ppm, and stays at that level until sunrise?
If you are lucky, you might get a glimmer of doubt, possibly enough to be able to start explaining the Carbon Cycle. The night figures might vary a bit, depending on the density of vegetation, location etc. “around here” is Western Pacific shoreline, tropical, mangroves, land is semi-urbanised, relatively low density, fringed by open forest and savanna.
00
Too much or too little CO2? Or are Canadians just pisswits on average? Take your pick.
40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of “CO2 famine” for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation
http://www.examiner.com/article/co2-data-shows-nobody-s-dead-from-a-little-carbon-dioxide
10
“2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city”
interestingly. this is where MANY latte sipping CAGW freaks hang out. 🙂
00
Andy they just secretly love CO2.
10
Hi Llew
The reduction of CO2 level in the bloodstream leads to neurological failure of the mechanism which initiates the breathing response.
A lot of CO2 is NOT harmful.
Too little CO2 in the bloodstream puts you in dangerous territory.
CO2 is ESSENTIAL to the continuation of our lives. It is not optional.
KK
00
KK,
I think the claim by ignoramuses and the implicit acceptance of that claim by the scientifically challenged, like Manne, Lewandowky et al, that CO2 is a pollutant is most likely a reflection of the declining university course entry levels over decades. Most tradesmen would have a better grasp of this sort of data than those who promote this nonsense. So much for “free” university “education”.
20
Good point Llew
Anything that is “free” seems to lose it’s value.
KK
00
Most ‘sheeples’ think that climate is ‘weather’ and visa versa. Basically the ‘sheeples’ cant read past their nose, too busy trying to survive the cataclysm about to be unleashed by the banks…Well apart from that Climate is longterm (centuries and millenium) so not man made. Local climate may have been altered by desertification but only locally. Any question like that stated is meaningless.
00
I wonder what the survey results for Calgary (Alberta) were? Since most Canadian Earth Scientists reside there and have a better understanding of paleoclimate changes.
00
maybe ask Suzuki ? he knows everything… just ask him.
00
“The headlines keep pushing the propaganda “Only 2% of Canadians deny climate change, suggests poll” [CBC]. The aim is to make people with one scientific opinion look like freaks.”
I’d expect nothing less from the CBC. It, the ABC and the BBC are three (green) peas in a pod (“Greenpeas”?)
00
I’ll wager a big part of those bizarre poll results came from Quebec citizens. They are so in the dark in that part of Canada.
00
How much are “studies” like this the product of (not so hidden) personal agendas, and how much the product of foolish, not-so-intelligent academics or the midnight-desperation of low-profile unimaginatives?
When I was at university I was impressed with the intelligence of my professors. When, 25 years later, I returned for a reunion, I was impressed with the impractical, disassociated aspects of my professors. Smart as they were, they did not talk about things that could be usefully employed. In a for-profit world, they would have starved or been sidelined as a resource, not a force.
So I wonder about some of the researchers I have encountered through the climate debate. It strikes me that they are like a terrier believing it has a rat in its mouth, thrashing from side-to-side, making great noises, while the observers see a child’s rag doll being chewed to death. While, of to the side, the rats are moving about, having lunch.
Now that we have lost God as a fail-proof authority for anything we might do (contradictory or not), we have They of the White Coats. Not medical doctors (we don’t like them any more), but the guys with computers and nerd glasses.
00
Sometimes I am embarrassed to be a Canadian. Be advised that (1) this “report” was backed by the CBC, our tax-funded telecommunication network that is known for its liberal and alarmist bias and (2) the respondents were chosen from a cadre of hired participants. Daytime call-in talk shows give you a distorted view of public opinion, because the callers are generally unemployed (and/or unemployable) and usually undereducated; paying these people for their opinion is laughable. At least on the prairies we were a bit more realistic.
00
Why are you surprised?
“Psychological Science” = “Oxymoron”.
00
This poll is consistent with the green cult belief that scientific facts are determined by consensus and opinion polling.
The CBC is as bad as ABC and the BBC. It is cult central for clearing of green propaganda.
00
If the entire Earth can warm with a rise of a piddling 100 parts PER MILLION (0.01%) of CO2 trace gas (blamed ONLY on mankind of course – forget natural rotting vegetation, bacteria, Bison, Dolpins and cute puppies et. al.), then Greenies and CAGWists should be burning their tongues on the 40,000 parts per million they exhale every breath on a sunny day! Well.. they deserve it. Haveth they no tongues, less lies be told.
Considering Methane (CH4) is measured in parts per BILLION, is some reported 23x more “warming” than CO2 and, is only some 1800ppb atmospheric content (worth only a measly 42ppm CO2 if you do the math), hopefully, every time an alarmist farts – they get a burning feeling as well.. 😉
10