Oops! CBC (the Canadian version of the BBC and ABC) have been caught out editing a story to make it more politically correct. CBC’s political bias is accidentally on display. The original message revealed a sacred truth that must not be spoken. How would most Canadians feel about being forced to pay money to change the weather if they knew most other Canadians also thought it was a waste of billions? As far as I can tell, the updated version was a complete rewrite of the first half of the article. There appear to be a lot of changes.
The unsurprising news is that 56% of Canadians are skeptics — which is very similar to all other surveys which show that 62% of Brits are 62% skeptical. As are 54% of Australians. Fully third of the US are so skeptical they think it’s a total hoax.
The survey:
Is Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activities? 56% say NO.
Amazingly 39% of Canadians said the next question that they don’t think humans are even partially responsible.
Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities. 39% say NO.
So CBC initially wrote a headline which said this:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans
But thou mayst never admit that skeptics are the majority lest the masses awaken. Groupthink is so influential! So the headline was rapidly changed to an ambiguous muddy wording:
Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
— The GWPF appears to have the original story and Webcache has the original headline.
Those results:
Click to enlarge.
The hidden topic the public broadcasters don’t want to discuss
Everything hinges on the word “mostly” — is the climate mostly human driven and so we have to take action, or is the climate driven mostly by something else, and our action is mostly pointless? This is key to the billion dollar policy debate. What matters here is not the binary belief or disbelief in the entire spectrum known as climate change. That’s a strawman. But the BBC, CBC and ABC appear to want to keep the debate at this pointless level. As far as national action goes we need to talk about how much humans affect the climate, and whether cutting emissions is worth the pain.
The original headline was as accurate as most headlines are
It didn’t need any change to maintain normal headline standards, but it could be improved. The headline could have been changed to make it more accurate without hiding that most Canadians don’t agree with the 97% consensus of climate scientists*. Here are three minor changes that the CBC didn’t choose but would have solved any ambiguity:
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe humans control it
Climate change: Majority of Canadians think natural forces control it
Climate change: Majority of Canadians don’t believe humans are main cause
Did the Yale researchers play a role in editing the news?
The update claims the correction was due to a “clarification by the researchers”. So either CBC are making up excuses to hide their own partisan political editing, or worse, Yale are seeking politically correct spin on their research, and the CBC compliant journalists are too empty headed to see through their excuses.
In the original version the size of the skepticism is the main theme at the top (my bolding):
The researchers, also from four U.S. universities, including Yale, surveyed a total of more than 5,000 Canadians over the last five years.
“The skepticism was a bit surprising,” said Érick Lachapelle, who co-authored the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication study, which is being submitted to a scientific journal for publication and has not yet been peer reviewed. “I think it is partly because Canadians are less knowledgable than one might think on the topic.”
Note the Yale communication geniuses know more about climate science than the surgeons, business owners, engineers and geo’s and others who make up “the public”. But if Érick Lachapelle was surprised at this result it’s only because he hasn’t done much research on their own speciality. Most surveys have shown the same thing (see those stats I put above). Canadians are just like the rest of the West.
The Editors note suggests the original story was wrong factually somehow. I’ve highlighted the key fudge words:
EDITOR’S NOTE: CBC has made changes to this story following clarification by the researchers. An earlier version said that a majority of Canadians surveyed didn’t believe that climate change was caused by humans. In fact, the study found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities.
A study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers suggests that while 79 per cent of Canadians do not doubt the reality of climate change, 39 per cent don’t believe it is caused by human activity.
The researchers, also from four other universities, including Yale, surveyed a total of more than 5,000 Canadians over the last five years.
“We asked participants if they believed the Earth was getting warmer partly or mostly due to human activities as an indication of climate change,” said lead researcher Matto Mildenberger.
Erick is not so surprised now. That quote the GWPF recorded has disappeared:
“This is a complex issue,” said Erick Lachapelle, the co-author of the study, which is being submitted to a scientific journal for publication and has not yet been peer reviewed.
“It’s kind of normal that people would have more nuanced opinions.”
The study did not ask what people felt was causing climate change, if they did not believe it was caused by humans.
Researchers did not note whether the proportion of Canadians who thought climate change was caused by humans had changed over the five years of the study.
The clarification note that doesn’t clarify?
The clarification note at the end of the article completely avoids saying that the original 56% figure was correct. The problem with it is that different people define “skeptic” differently and some might have interpreted the headline as saying that 56% don’t believe in any form of man-made climate change. Since billions of dollars and 97% of climate scientists say that humans are the dominant cause, it’s pretty obvious that the figure that matters most for public policy is that 56% of Canadians disagree.
Clarifications
An earlier version of this article said that a majority of Canadians surveyed didn’t believe that climate change was caused by humans. In fact, the study found that 44 per cent of respondents believed the earth is getting warmer because of human activities. The study found that 61 per cent felt it was partly or mostly caused by human activities.
It’s pretty stark — how much influence has science lost if “97%” of a specialty say something is for sure and beyond debate and yet more than half the population think they are exaggerating. Don’t expect to see that debate on any public broadcaster unless it’s framed as telling us how stupid the public are. If there is gross corruption, incompetence and unscientific behavior going on in the science industry, the last place we’ll read about it is in our taxpayer funded news agencies.
In reality skeptics are everywhere. Even the 97% consensus is only a 43% one. More than half the climate scientists don’t agree with the IPCC statement that they are “95% certain” it’s mostly manmade .
Sell the CBC. Sell the BBC. Sell the ABC. Use the money to pay off public debt that big-government loving agencies helped to create.
Requests to readers:
Can anyone find past studies by the same team to compare the number year on year?
Can anyone find a copy of the whole original CBC story in one link or cache? Can anyone get a screen cap of the original story?
h/t Ian Cameron, David, GWPF.
UPDATE: Paul Matthews found the twitter chain. People, including Leah Stokes, one of the researchers made a fuss about the “awful wording” and “terrible reporting”.
Hre is the original tweet from CBC with reply from Leah Stokes
CBC NewsVerified account
@CBCNews
Climate change not the fault of humans, indicates study of Canadians http://www.cbc.ca/1.3458142
Leah Stokes @leahstokes 19h19 hours ago
@CBCNews I wrote this study. This is not AT ALL what we said. Terrible reporting continues.
That most Canadians are skeptical of the IPCC and the “consensus” may not be what the annointed experts said, but it is what the survey showed.
“Sell the CBC. Sell the BBC. Sell the ABC. Use the money to pay off public debt that big-government loving agencies helped to create.”
Money is actually created out of debt. When the principal is payed, that money disappears/is destroyed from whence it came.
161
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
“As a loan is paid back through reductions in the demand deposit liabilities the bank owes to a customer, that commercial bank money disappears from existence. “
60
Twaddle. The earliest coins, defined as such, were minted in Lydia (mint and money have the same etymology). They are ovals of silver, with incuse squares. Like all subsequent coins, they represent wealth, property and ownership, not debt.
The earliest Latin coins could hardly have made the point more plainly, with names like uncius (“ounce”), quincunx (“five ounces”), as “pound”, or dupondius (“two pounds”). In the early days of money in Central Italy (one of the most influential places in all of history), if you wanted to buy something that was assessed at two pounds of copper, you had to produce two pounds of copper.
Over time, huge coins like that proved impractical, but the principle didn’t change. Money meant wealth.
To illustrate how daft your claim sounds, I’d invite you to consider this: Britain, especially Southern England, has a huge number of coin (i.e. “money”) hoards from the Roman occupation and from the decades both before and following it. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the people who carefully buried their wealth in the ground were really burying “debt“?
90
Owen, Mike has a point, though this is not the thread for it. Money and wealth are not the same thing. You are right about wealth, but he’s right about fiat currencies. When you borrow $500k for a house, most of that money is not waiting in a bank vault for you to turn up. The bank clicks most of the money into electronic existence. See posts on Money here. See also Manufacturing money.
170
So if carbon credits are just a form of fiat currency,
and,
carbon warms the atmosphere,
then,
carbon credits are nothing but hot air?
Abe
220
Jo,
Just out on the money angle.
https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/
Cheers
Louis
60
Great find Louis Hissink: It even features the cartoon by Joe Nova
Great work Jo!!
https://www.corbettreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/climatebankers.jpg
70
Typo **cartoon by Jo Nova
40
When I did my one semester, on international finance, we referred to debt in terms of Rallods, or Dnuops. Both of which, represent a form of negative currency, as a surrogate for debt.
Everything still works. Except you are doing, whatever you are doing, using other peoples’ future money, and not your own current money.
Thinking about things apex-backwards, is great for exploring human societal and financial constructs that are assumed to be givens, but maybe not.
20
Owen, Mike is right. And so is Jo about the difference between money and wealth.
Think about it from another angle. I know this isn’t what the thread is about, Jo, but I couldn’t let this pass. We’re talking about the modern world, not Lydia.
IF MIKE WERE WRONG, then it would mean that banks could create currency, issue new currency. Willy-nilly. And they can’t. Only the federal government can legally issue the ‘unit of account’, the sovereign nation’s non-convertible currency or legal tender, (meaning not convertible to a metal, their fiat, no fixed exchange rate). Eg: Australia, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, USA.
In the case of the USA, about 11-12% of that issue is paper currency. The rest are keystrokes added to vendor commercial bank accounts through “government spending’ authorized by Congress…only. They are dispersed upon the US Treasury’s direction by the federal government’s banker, the Fed. And the mechanism the US Treasury uses to render those keystrokes liquid is by creating (issuing) treasury securities, which vendors will trade their keystrokes into for safety. Commercial US banks cannot insure their commercial clients for more than $250,000 per account. It’s the reason why US treasury securities are the safest financial asset in the world; they are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the the US federal government. You can’t lose your dough, and they pay interest, unlike gold or any other metal. Increasing your wealth, btw.
Banks create credit money. It is a bank liability. And it is always, always, offset on the left side of ledger by the loan, the asset. So it all nets to zero at that level.
Think of it as a ‘+’ (cross). The vertical is the federal government. The horizontal is the non-federal government’s use of that money, both domestic and foreign.
Only the vertical issues new interest-free money (USD) into the economy. Legally, that is, unless someone, or some country, is counterfeiting.
The horizontal–with its million-gazillion-arcane-sounding-fancy-dance-financial instruments–is the use, mis-use, movement, and velocity of what the vertical has determined it will add to society through congressional action.
30
Add to this that governments are pushing us away from physical money (i.e. paper/plastic notes) to credit and debit cards. Remember the recent reports of trying to phase out “big bills” because they are allegedly used predominantly by criminals. Then you have central banks going to negative official interest rates so it costs depositors (other banks in this case) to leave “excess” reserves with them and the whole system is starting to look quite spooky.
If governments had their way all physical money would be gone which would eliminate much of the tax evasion of cash markets. Ever been involved in a “cashie”? Most people have.
Once all “money” is electronic it becomes easier to control centrally. No more grandpa hiding it under mattresses etc. Much as in Star Wars “The tighter your grip…” the more people will look to alternatives. Gold will become more popular as will Bitcoin or something that supersedes it.
BTW Think that credit balance in your monthly bank account statement means anything? That money doesn’t actually exist, other than a mark on a ledger which doesn’t exist because it is electronic. Ask the Cypriots if they think their bank balances mean anything (think the recent “bail-in”). It is happening in mainland Europe as well … several Italian banks are also pretty shaky.
Anyone’s guess how this is going to end… my educated guess is badly.
40
Barter is alive and thriving in rural areas, at least in New Zealand. The local market will barter an exchange of eggs for vegetables, and no fiat currency needs to change hands.
That is what will happen, more intensively, and on a wider scale, if physical money goes away entirely. Who needs, or wants, an electronic gizmo, that can be tracked by the banks and the Government? We didn’t need them a few centuries ago. And trade doesn’t actualy need them now.
On the English Pound note, it used to say, “I promise to pay the bearer, the sum of one pound”. That is all money is; a promisory note, for the delivery of future, and as yet undefined, goods. We still barter, but we do it via surrogates. Get rid of the surrogates, and nothing bad will happen.
30
Dumbing down the public is why people no longer trust the media…and politicians that keep pushing bull-crap in so many areas for vested interested parties.
210
Interstingly, I have quite a few friends who are blue collar and rather good at exposing BS. From our conversations, the blue collar brigade consider the whole CAGW nonsense just that. See, they are outside all day and when you have several geenrations on building sites that talk, they will tell you whether its getting hotter.
Of course it isnt, so the CAGW crowd better start WWIII soon for a diversion, or the whole CAGW lie is going to crash down around their ears…..
140
Sorry, what Climate Change have the Canadians experienced?
I read how Australia is experiencing unnatural and substantial and rapid Climate Change, but have yet to hear a single explanation of what it is. It is not the weather. There are record summers. There are record winters. There are even by definition the coldest winters in 100 years. Notably in Europe, 1812, 1943 etc. for Napoleon and Hitler respectively. No one spoke of Climate Change. We in Australia just had a decade long drought, precisely as we did a century before. It is now over, as before. America had the massive drought and heat of the 1930s. What Climate Change? Droughts and flooding rains are the climate in Australia. They are not Climate Change.
So how do Canadians know to have an opinion on Climate Change when the questions presumes Climate Change/Global Warming is occurring? How can anyone answer the question if they don’t know what it is? If the Global temperature is not changing, what does it matter whether people think it is? If it is not changing, how can the change be man made? If the temperature changes doesn’t exist how is man changing the climate? Is a change in global temperature of 0.8C in 100 years even significant?
So to the questions
The earth is getting warmer?
If you answer no/non, how can you possibly answer the next question?
The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activities?
Neither answer is right because the question suggests and assumes the only answer to the first question is yes.
Then how can 5% of people not agree that humans are warming the planet but agree to a Cap and Trade system for no reason? Plus another 7% who disagree about the warming but do not know whether to support a cap and trade system to prevent something they say is not happening?
Is this an intelligence test? In which case you have to fail 12%. Surely this set of questions is not serious and don’t call me Shirley.
362
This is a problem for this and most other surveys of public opinion. The questions seem designed to confuse and obfuscate. Why don’t they ask simple, clear questions? That way we might draw meaningful conclusions from the results.
Take question 3 for example: Are humans partly or mostly responsible for climate change? That is mostly a restatement of question 2. It would be better to ask; Are human partly responsible for climate change? Then the results can be combined or dissected in the analysis.
Even worse, as TdeF points out is that we don’t even know what they mean by Climate Change! So all the answers are meaningless. Why would anyone want to publish that?
70
Opinion polls are simply another political marketing tool, so questions have to be loaded to extract the correct answer
If you think not, look at:
1) sample size
2) that you cannot find out who commissioned the poll
100
There is an old saying”Never conduct a poll unless you know what the result is going to be”
90
Exactly. My point made later. This politicised poll is so bad, so logically wrong, biased and filled with propaganda that the intention is clearly not to discover the truth but to push an agenda and a story and publicity. It is nothing like a real survey trying to impartially and objectively discover people’s opinions. It is far worse than a survey from Sir Humphrey Applebee on Yes Minister and that was a comedy.
100
“Sorry, what Climate Change have the Canadians experienced? ”
“Canadian cities break Valentine’s Day cold records set in 19th century ”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/14/canadian-cities-break-valentines-day-cold-records-set-in-19th-century.html
And then of course there is the principal that says, he/she who prints the money predetermines/calls the tune” alluded to in my previous post.
100
It’s ‘global warming’ TdeF, but not as we know it. 🙂
91
sounds like a line from the song “star treking”
10
60% of Lake Erie freezes in two days with record snow and cold in Canada.
20
To true el gordo.
And here’s the video https://youtu.be/WCDvRB3WxBs
10
This just cant be true.
Eminent climate scientists are telling the world (a la media) that the Arctic is “BAKING”.
There is nothing more painful than a baked Arctic.
20
I dunno, I’ve had a baked Alaska, and that’s nearly the same.
30
ABC
BBC
CBC
The common denominator is that each has a fervent belief in ecoloon climatology, funded by taxpayers who generally believe the opposite. Another common denominator is a top heavy, overpaid leftie/luvvie bureaucratic administration.
So BC is an acronym for what? Bad Climate? Broadcasting Crap? Baffling Conclusions? Beastly Con? Boorish Commentary?
As far as climate is concerned, all three organisation place huge emphasis on spin, as opposed to objective reporting. It is just all part of being the liberal/ luvvie establishment.
301
numerous UK surveys put the public at about 48% thinking partly man, partly natural cause to climate change
but it is always framed as yes/no belief in climate change
60
Barry the survey on the UK that I linked too was one of the best I’ve seen. It asked very specific questions and cross checked them with full demographics. It’s in the link in the post.
130
Jo, the person who played a role in editing the news story is one of the researchers involved, Leah Stokes. Check out her tweets @leahstokes.
.@CBCAfternoonDr Actually, 61% of Canadians believe #climatechange is human caused. Great interview otherwise!
.@CBCBreakaway This is incorrect- 61% of Canadians believe #climatechange is human caused. In every single riding a majority support action.
A strong majority Canadians-61%-believe #climatechange is human caused. Inaccurate reporting @CBC. Here’s the data:
.@afternoonCBC Actually, 61% – a majority – of Canadians believe #climatechange is human caused.
.@afternoonCBC not quite right. Actually, a majority of Canadians -61%- believe #climatechange is human caused.
Wow. She is misrepresenting the findings of her own research. Wow. She found that 61% thought it was partly or mostly caused by human activities, but missed out ‘partly or mostly’ in her tweets to CBC.
120
And here is the original tweet from CBC with reply from Leah Stokes
https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/701851679466115072
CBC NewsVerified account
@CBCNews
Climate change not the fault of humans, indicates study of Canadians http://www.cbc.ca/1.3458142
Leah Stokes @leahstokes 19h19 hours ago
@CBCNews I wrote this study. This is not AT ALL what we said. Terrible reporting continues.
120
Surely even not-that-bright people can see the whole “4 legs good, 2 legs bad” propaganda in action?
60
It is The Emperors New Cloths played out in the MSM. They fear the whole charade can be brought down by one boy asking “Why is the Emperor naked?”
The Climate Charade is a conceptual Ponzi Scheme in which the result was determined before gathering the data. A shaky foundation built upon by false premises, invalid conclusions, and pal review. Every step of the way the truth was evaded or rewritten, or hidden. As all Ponzi Schemes must do, eventually, it will fail catastrophically.
This suggests the much feared “tipping point” is not runaway global warming but the wide spread recognition that it was all a Charade from the get go. In olden times, when the masses recognized the failure of the King, there would be massive torch, pitch fork, and rope parades attacking and sacking the castles.
They thought that reality would cooperate with their Charade. Alas, reality is what it is and will do what it will do no matter what the script we write for it to follow. Interesting times will soon be upon us.
212
That is usually Rule No. 1 in official climate science papers, however this can sometimes be challenged by Rule No. 2:
50
“The update claims the correction was due to a “clarification by the researchers”. So either CBC are making up excuses to hide their own partisan political editing, or worse, Yale are seeking politically correct spin on their research, and the CBC compliant journalists are too empty headed to see through their excuses.”
I read through quite a few of the comments on the article (most were a waste of time). But I found the source of the change: Leah Stokes, one of the authors of the study, complained in the comments that the headline was factually inaccurate and the reporting was terrible. She also claimed that there is no majority of Canadians who do not believe that global warming is man-caused, yet the website link she linked to indicates that only 44% of Canadians think that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activities.
As a Canadian, I have long been aware that the CBC is all about telling us what we are supposed to think. I think this is sad, considering that its original purpose was to reflect the various cultural regions to the country as a whole, to foster a sense of unity, and to protect Canadian culture. And in earlier years, I think they did so. Not any more.
210
I just sent an email to Erick Lachapelle suggesting Canadians are more informed than he thinks, citing M&M, Donna Laframboise and the Friends of Science as a few Canadians who have an informed skeptical viewpoint. I also reminded him the Internet never forgets.
60
Meanwhile, here in Aus; I used to think that I knew what I thought, but then I stopped being able to get the ABC and now I’m not so sure.
20
I can’t get the ABC or SBS on my TV either….
Hint.. there is a “skip” feature you can apply so you don’t accidentally find one when changing the channel.
20
OMG. It gets worse. Check out the picture that shows the results in Jo’s post. 44 Yes, 56 No on the key question of mostly human-caused.
Now load their web page again
http://umontreal.ca/climat/engl/index.html
It’s changed. It now says 44 yes, 39 no, with a big grey gap in the middle.
180
That’d be the Peer review. 😉
200
They used to be Peer Reviews.
They are now Pier Reviews.
“The Pier” is a really good pub.
20
People who try to put a cat into a bag for a second time learn very quickly that it’s probably better to just ignore the cat and let it roam free. The CBC/”researchers” apparently haven’t learned this simple lesson.
160
The warmists appear confident enough to wear white pants every day, but when you stack lie upon lie to exist accidents will happen with a 97% certainty.
92
100
In the radio interview I heard on CBC (Climate Bull Chit) the interviewee also blamed the diabolical Koch brothers for muddying the “facts” of climate change. Is that a bias?? 🙂
191
It is not just the public broadcasters reporting the adjusted twaddle. In BC all the news outlets sing the same tune, heck Tamara on Vancouver CTV just reported January was the warmest, ever, so it must be true.
David Suzuki says anyone disagreeing with his irrational rants should be thrown in jail. This from a man who was locked up in a Japanese interment camp in BC. I think everyone knows the debate on that subject, but with this experience he is opposed to scientific freedoms and debate. For some reason he believes it his right to pick freedoms.
Hello David do you want interment camps for skeptics?
140
Someone should attempt to explain the difference between a world war and a self inflicted psychological war to him.
Second thoughts it would be like explaining to fish what water is, don’t bother.
90
It may have disappeared but the very first commenter, Tunder Bar at CBC News quotes Erick’s original comments ie:
I wonder if they’ll ‘disappear Tunder Bar’s comment because it looks a bit awkward quoting something that’s no longer there. 😉
110
I heard that report on CBC morning show. I was surprised that they would even comment on the study, they have a habit of ignoring stories that don’t fit the narrative.
I was rather amused to hear how appalled they were at what they were telling us, suggesting reasons, making excuses, mostly that the unbelievers are uninformed or depend on “big oil” for their jobs. I’m not surprised that they’ve gone into damage control mode.
130
More from the Comments section at CBC News where Leah Stokes posts a comment:
There are some replies to Leah Stokes post as well.
Here’s the Paper
50
Paper is pulled – or sayeth my browser. Can’t be found. Authorities notified. Come back later, when we have massaged the numbers, again.
Or the URL under “Paper” was pooched.
101
It’s been pulled …
These people are beyond disgrace and shame. They just don’t care because there are no adverse consequences for lying
I do wonder if Lewanclownsky advised them
50
Apologies Mari C . . I checked the links last night and they worked then, but not now.
H/t to Monna Manhas.
The CBC article (with the comments) is now:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142
My original link to the Paper was taken from the CBC article.
I think it had an embedded tracker in the URL so try this direct link to the paper.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2732935
I’ve downloaded the paper just in case.
Cheers.
P.S. Jo, the paper states:
So, perhaps there are no previous Canadian studies?
20
The whole story has been pulled from the CBC website, comments and all.
50
Found it again here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142
50
My only question at this point is, how far does this stuff go?
At what percentage point does the public yawn turn it around.
The warmunist should stuff it, at least until beach front property prices start to tank.
60
This confuses me.
Why is an opinion poll being treated like a scientific study (published and peer reviewed)?
130
Yeah, I couldn’t figure that out either.
Wasn’t Cook’s 97% paper also peer reviewed?
Perhaps they do a spell check . . .
141
That paper didn’t even rise to the level of an opinion survey.
It was a paper about a study of other papers.
Maybe we need a paper to study the motivations of people who write papers about papers.
“Recursive Foolery”?
30
Well, someone wants the numbers to reflect what they want to see. Not what is there, not what people think, but what agrees with the Popular Meme.
And now, according the link below, we have a reason. Although this shows that we, the skeptical, the ones who don’t see what the media and the IPCC want us to see, are in the wrong – it isn’t research, knowledge, looking at the prediction and seeing the facts don’t match. We just are blinded by our politics.
90
Oops – link to WP article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/22/science-confirms-it-denial-of-climate-change-is-all-about-the-politics/
40
CBC’s attempts to stay “on message” in their editorial control is matched by the censoring of commenting on stories. This procedure is contracted out to…”a company named ICUC Moderation which is based in Winnepeg, Manitoba. ICUC in turn employs “telecommuters”, outsourcing their own labour force to people scattered all over the globe. A comment posted in Ontario might be moderated in Argentina.” http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2013/07/cbc-outsources-to-labour-force.html
As CBC’s 4657th ranked commenter, (624 with 1148 likes in a decade) never obscene or impolite, having my attempt to point out differences between Norway and Alberta “permanently disabled”…
(“Norway’s population is barely 1m more than Alberta’s 4.2m with access to a huge European and world market for their oil and gas.
Had Alberta put all the billions of transfer payments pumped to Canada’s “have nots” like Quebec, into their own “sovereign wealth” fund, what would the story be?”)
..following a CBC opinion piece lambasting Alberta for not being like Norway and squirreling away hundreds of billions of their oil royalties, seems purely political.
Recently a new technique has been introduced in which virtually all my posts are “held for moderation” until the commenting wave has passed by and they are quietly released far up the string and attract no discussion.
Well the new government promised a further $125million top-up to the $1.3 billion + budget if they won…
90
hard for Alberta to save when the east (especially Quebec) get to poach a good chunk of the provinces revenues in the form of “transfer payments” and “equalization”
00
Indeed. This is CBC censorship and any comment criticizing the new hour(s) delay in posting comment is systematically flagged and censored.
All subjects are concerned preventing any discussion and ensuring any informative comment going against the grain is drowned.
This is no different than what happened after the Je Suis Charlie, when comments in newspapers were severely curtained. Here, after the Trudeau/Green lobby taking power, the same happens, pretending to offer pluralism but making it tougher to debate.
00
Regarding survey questions that ask if people believe “most” of the warming is human-caused, why not just ask them to put an actual number on it? For example, “What percent of recent warming is caused by humans?” Don’t suggest ranges. You can quibble with the meanings of “recent” and “caused” but a simple question with a simple number would tell us much better what the public thinks. The distribution of responses would be interesting as well. Is it bimodal? Skewed? How does it break out by various demographics?
40
I agree. If you don’t ask people to respond with a number (percentage), at least require that your survey present responses in mirror-image form. For example, if one of the possible responses is: “Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities,” then the mirror-image response: “Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of natural phenomena” should also be included. If such a response had been included in the reference survey, I believe considerably more than half the people would have responded: “True.” If so, the interesting situation would have arisen where in the logic of Leah Stokes (a) more than half the people believe man causes global warming and (b) more than half the people believe nature causes global warming–kind of like the half-man/have-bear/half-pig creature of the internet.
The results of such a survey and the interpretation of those results by deep thinkers like Ms Stokes have nothing to do with the actual causes of global warming (if it even exists), but have a lot to do with the funding of future similar surveys. Put the politically incorrect spin on the results of your survey and you can kiss your future funding goodbye.
30
I believe that so-called climate change is caused by humans. I do.
Humans invented the idea, so, yeah, humans caused climate change.
In other words, AGW / Climate Change / Climate Disruption / Climate Description du jour is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Bible was a bit prescient on Climate Change calling human ideas like this “all wind and noise”.
21
Jo,
As of this moment:
The yahoo news current version.
The yahoo news cached version.
Do a google search for the following phrase including the quotes:
“Majority of Canadians don’t believe it’s caused by humans”
Google searches it’s cached pages and then displays the live links to those pages.
The search finds the page but clicking on the link takes you to the page as it appears now.
You’ll need to save the cached page(s) onto your hard drive.
Abe
71
BTW,
That cached page will disappear as soon as the yahoo page is crawled by google at the next scheduled time.
And,
The original CBC story doesn’t have a cached version available in the search results because it appears as first on the list and so it’s “In The News”. (For me, anyway!)
Abe
40
BTW to BTW,
Saved the cached page to disc. 🙂
E-mail coming shortly.
Abe
50
Partially off topic, but the psyche & actions of the MSM ( & the audience they perform for) were pretty much nailed in a ZH article on their incapacity to get “the Donald” recently:-
petit bourgeois technocrat class
They don’t get it, and the reason why they don’t get it is because they are rooted in the petit bourgeois technocrat class that aspires to insider status within corrupt cliques of centralized power. The pundit burnishes their credentials with the usual petit bourgeois baubles–advanced degrees from “respected” universities, books published by “respected” New York publishing houses, and fellowships from “respected” poverty-pimp foundations funded by guilt-ridden plunderers and their dilettante offspring.
80
oops
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-23/what-pundits-dont-get-about-trump
40
Most climate surveys do not mean a lot,
As most respondents couldn’t give a jot,
On climate-change being mostly cool or hot,
And mostly caused by man or mostly not.
160
🙂
40
Keep it up Ruairi.
40
Clearly, at least in the U.S., all the utilities are definitely not skeptics. In an era when natural gas is abundant and cheap the Southern California Gas Company is installing the gas meter equivalent of the electricity smart meters. It’s just a new readout device that mounts on the old existing meter and probably took less than 10 minutes per meter. So now they can get rid of the people they sent around reading meters every day — a good thing from the gas company’s point of view I suspect. But no sooner are these things working than I get a letter that looks every bit like it’s intended to shame me into reducing my gas usage to that of the household using the least gas per month anywhere in the state. Their web site contains links to, among other things, a way to compute your carbon footprint and a section called, “Begin Saving Now,” or words to that effect. What a joke. If I had any problem with the amount of my monthly bill I would know exactly what to do about it, turn down the thermostat, turn down the temperature on the water heater. Those are the only two possible money saving actions after you’ve insulated your whole house, walls as well as attic and installed double pane windows and sliding door.
You would think a company in business to sell a product would not want to encourage customers to buy less of it but to buy more. I’m not sure at all why the utilities aren’t fighting the California Public Utilities Commission and the State of California tooth and nail. Why are they not trying to enlist the public’s help to get things changed? But the very people who should be on the customer’s side are in bed with the man made shortage brigade that now runs California.
And to add insult to injury, their web site demands that I enable my browser to accept third party cookies — something I will never do because they allow tracking you all over the net. Privacy and security are already compromised in so many ways I don’t think I could reiterate them here. And now one more demand to compromise. I will never go back to their web site.
60
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ee28t1e152QJ:https://ca.news.yahoo.com/climate-change-majority-canadians-dont-095400402.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk
10
A Canadian take on this
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/02/a-b-a-year.html#comments
20
I Managed to snag a cached copy from Yahoo and I reposted it with a bit of formatting as needed. No change to any text whatsoever.
http://hellobirdy.blogspot.ca/2016/02/cbc-quickly-changed-that-headline-egads.html
10
And speaking of tings to be skeptical about… …very skeptical about.
New study finds sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in last 3,000 years.
Be patient, the video will start in a few seconds. Verizon does some strange things but you eventually get there. On my browser it ends up creating a whole new window, so don’t be surprised at strange behavior. I think they try to limit access to those not signed in based on a cookie, not sure. Anyway, I’d appreciate hearing abut it if it doesn’t work.
Thanks
10
Roy, I was debating posting that link here, not sure of the etiquette, so thanks! Also there were several scare-lines regarding how much faster the temps climbed this past century since the ice age
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php is a more sciency-looking one,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age is more typical.
00
From hanging around for a while I can see that Jo generally will tolerate material not directly related to the topic of the thread. I’ve been able to stick in something like that a number of times without any objection.
00
Australians are evenly divided on the issue, but that would change dramatically if auntie gave the Denialati a chance to speak.
http://www.essentialvision.com.au/climate-change-12
Most Australians have a lot of respect for the ABC, which we can turn to our advantage before the cooling begins. Without the organisation we’ll never be able to convince the greenleftoids that climate change scepticism is not a right wing conspiracy in the pay of fossil fuels.
Seeing reality for the first time will be met with disbelief and shock, especially among the university educated class, but hopefully we’ll have all the answers.
It was only the sun stoopids.
31
In defense of those who think that the world isn’t getting warmer.
20
Allegedly the Global Temperature has gone up by +0.8C in 100 years assuming early 20th century measurements were accurate and representative of every area of the planet, even huge unexplored, unrecorded Antarctica and all the oceans which cover 2/3 of the planet and the starting point is critical as in Australia the Federation drought is avoided.
So who decided the starting temperature and who is now in charge of the final figure? Who comes up with this figure every year? Yes, impartial scientists in the department of Climate Change. We can only be grateful for satellites.
In the massive Global Warming industry, can anyone afford the Global Temperature to drop? It is very suspicious that it is going neither up nor down even by 0.1C, which would lead a cynical person to conclude that it is likely going down and held up only by endless fiddling and weightings. Or equally that it did not rise in the age before satellites and that 0.8C is the fabrication, that the satellite measured temperature does not vary much and that it never did. Some areas had droughts and some had decades of cold, but possibly the average did not change. That seems more likely.
So while we have been told for thirty years that the world is warming, is it? Even if real, is less than one degree really going to change a climate (Antarctica -50C to -25C for example or Singapore 32 to 32)?
Some groups like the CSIRO are now saying Climate Change has happened. They have switched to the past tense!
I have to say it is really infuriating that people now talk about Climates Changed and when you ask questions, they switch to temperature, which is not changing or ocean acidification, which is not true.
What Climate Change? If +0.8C is significant, where and how have the Climates Changed? Australia’s 350 scientists have come to no conclusion at all after many years of dedicated study to find a problem. Sell the CSIRO. It is a retirement village. Sell the ABC/CBC/BBC as well. Who needs them?
101
Surveys like this are not actually trying to establish public opinion but to form and influence public opinion. With leading questions they reinforce the message of Climate Change/Global Warming and keep it in the news. Otherwise it will collapse into meaningless irrelevance, where it belongs.
71
Paul Matthews (comment #10) –
u made my day posting the change on the umontreal website…now showing only 39% don’t believe CAGW is MOSTLY caused by humans, down from the original 56%, with a huge grey area in the middle!
I believe French-language HuffPo was the first to report on this story and CBC picked it up from there. according to what I noticed on google results yesterday, HuffPo had been posted online several hours before the CBC piece:
22 Feb: Le HuffPo Canada: Rechauffement climatique causé par les humains: des donnees qui divisent les Canadiens (VIDEO)
RCQC | Par Radio-Canada.ca
http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/22/rechauffement-climatique-cause-par-les-humains-une-majorite-de-canadiens-n-y-croient-pas_n_9289146.html
HuffPo article states:
Publication: 22/02/2016 07:20 EST
CBC article states:
Posted: Feb 22, 2016 9:54 AM ET|
Last Updated: Feb 23, 2016 5:05 PM ET
and HuffPo”s first comment was posted:
22 fevrier 2016 05:01
by Michel Micot: A 56% d’imbeciles, le Canada est condamne et si cette norme est mondiale, l’humanite l’est.
CBC does not show time comments were posted.
the HuffPo headline still includes “VIDEO”, but today the video has ompletely disappeared.
yesterday, it played lengthy interview in French with Lachapelle but, when I tried to watch it a second time before posting a partial google translation of the article on Jo’s previous “UK Politics” thread (see comment #24), the video played a totally unrelated news story and, as I said, it’s now gone altogether, except for the headline!
this is such an hilarious & typical CAGW episode, the latest of many, yet the comedians just don’t get it!
btw I believe the entire purpose of the survey was encapsulated in the following question:
“Support cap and trade system Yes: 66% No: 27%”
lol.
40
not surprised to see top tweet on Leah Stokes twitter page at time of posting is:
Leah Stokes @leahstokes · Feb 22
A majority in every Canadian riding supports cap and trade for #climatechange http://bit.ly/1KEiYqA #cdnpoli
Leah C. Stokes
Curriculum vitae
I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). I completed my PhD in Public Policy in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning Environmental Policy & Planning group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). I also received a masters from MIT’s Political Science Department.
Primarily, my research examines public policy, with a focus on energy politics in North America. My dissertation examined retrenchment and expansion of renewable energy policies in the United States, drawing on interest group and policy feedback theories. This works builds on my research on the politics surrounding Ontario, Canada’s green energy laws.
My other research focuses on political behavior, including the ramifications of local resistance to wind power, as well as public opinion on energy and the environment…
I completed an MPA in Environmental Science & Policy at the School of International & Public Affairs and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
I have a BSc in Psychology and East Asian Studies from the University of Toronto…
http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/stokes/
Yale has also altered the results for the MOSTLY question – now has the huge grey area inbetween “Yes” and “No”.
as with Uni of Montreal, “No” now has only 39%.
http://environment.yale.edu/ycom/canada/2016/
(from the bottom of the Yale page: This research and website are funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Societe et Culture, the Skoll Global Threats Fund, the Energy Foundation, and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. Additionally, funding for individual survey waves was provided by the Ministere des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie, the Public Policy Forum, Sustainable Prosperity, Canada 2020, l’Institut de l’energie Trottier and la Chaire d’etudes politiques et economiques americaines)
30
Check out this CBC story to se another example of their bias…they compare a picture of a mountain lake taken in July 2006 to a picture of the same lake taken August 2014 as PROOF that the climate is changing. Is it any surprise to anyone that a lake in the northern hemisphere will have less ice in August than in July?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/decker-glacier-lake-at-whistler-a-sign-of-melt-to-come-1.2745216
41
HuffPo attributed their article to ICI Radio Canada and Etienne Leblanc.
***note the correction at ICI Radio now, plus i cannot find any video/audio on the page which has, of course, been updated/adjusted:
ICI Radio Canada: Rechauffement climatique cause par les humains : des donnees qui divisent les Canadiens
Un texte d’Etienne Leblanc, reporter specialise en environnement
Publie lundi le 22 fevrier 2016 a 21 h 51 | Mis a jour mardi le 23 fevrier 2016 a 06 h 49
***Tuning
A previous version of this article was titled “Global warming caused by humans: a majority of Canadians do not believe.”
The title was based on the fact that less than half, or 44% of survey respondents mentioned in the article said they believe that global warming was “mostly” the result of human activity. It appears that nuancing this question, we learn that 61% of Canadians believe that global warming is “partly or mainly” caused by human activity.
For accuracy, we changed our title and clarified our article.
Skepticism about the causes of global warming
The researchers also asked Canadians if they agreed with a proposal widely recognized by science , that global warming is mostly caused by human activities.
Across the country , a minority of Canadians – 44% – agree with that statement. Even in Quebec, the province that has the highest approval rating on the issue , only a small majority of Quebecers – 53% – supports this theory.
When you shade the statement and ask Canadians whether climate change is “partly or mainly ” caused by human activity , the proportion of Canadians who said in favor of this proposal rises to 61% , and 68 % in Quebec…
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnement/2016/02/22/001-une-majorite-de-canadiens-ne-croient-pas-que-humain-responsable-des-changements-climatiques.shtml
30
btw am just realising the change at Yale/Uni on Montreal from 56% to 39% for the MOSTLY question would seem to be to align it with the 39% who don’t believe earth is getting warmer “partly or mostly”, if you get what i mean.
also noticing umontreal has reversed the two questions today. yesterday the MOSTLY question was ahead of the “partly or mostly” question.
unless someone can find a cached or captured version of the following, we can only guess at the changes/adjustments in their update, but note how 61% and 39% are used even in this version!
22 Feb: Montreal Gazette: Christopher Curtis: Climate change is real, Canadians say, but causes up for debate: study
Published on: February 22, 2016 | Last Updated: February 22, 2016 8:26 PM EST
The research, co-authored by Université de Montréal researchers, suggests that 79 per cent of Canadians believe in the reality of climate change. While 61 per cent of respondents said the phenomenon is at least partly due to human activity, only ***39 per cent believe it is mostly caused by humans…
“Probably the most positive aspect of this is that there’s consensus across the board, in every riding, that climate change is real,” said Erick Lachapelle, a Université de Montréal professor who co-authored the study with researchers from University of California Santa Barbara, Utah State University and Yale University.
“Even when you look at some of the more oil-producing places in Alberta, you don’t get the kind of outright (climate change) denial that you get in the United States.”…
Two thirds of the study’s respondents said they’d support a cap and trade system — where the federal government would impose limits on emissions and force polluters to buy unused emissions from other companies…
Christopher Green, professor of environmental economics at McGill University: “What we could do, what’s much more plausible, is something like a $5-a-ton that grows slowly over time. That way, it doesn’t really affect consumers and it builds revenues you can convert toward breakthroughs that would make very large amounts of carbon-free energy available. Those breakthroughs require a lot of research and development and that money has to come from somewhere.”…
http://montrealgazette.com/news/climate-change-is-real-canadians-say-but-causes-up-for-debate-study?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
30
Here is Prof. Brian Schmidt talking about a CSIRO booklet released prior to Paris COP21 Global Warming talks to convince sceptics of a new world order we must join:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/age-gender-race-climate-scepticism-is-predominantly-party-political-20160222-gn05y0.html
Titled, “Age, gender, race: Climate sceptics predominately party political”, it has a graph titled, ” How belief in [Global Warming] correlates with social factors”.
Lots of pigeon holes to be stuffed and they waste no time applying labels to evil pigeons for persecution of non-belief in ‘the science’.
That’ll convince ’em.
50
more evidence MOSTLY was first…combination “partly or mostly” says “volunteered”:
Yale Project on Climate Communication: Survey Question Wording
Individuals who responded “Don’t know” or who did not answer the question were not modeled separately and appear as gray segments within the bar charts…
Earth is getting warmer because of human activity
[If yes, solid evidence] “Is the earth getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels or mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?”
•Mostly human activity
•Mostly natural patterns
•A combination [volunteered]
•Not sure [volunteered]
http://environment.yale.edu/ycom/canada/2016/questions
30
This is a horrible survey. Look at that question. A “combination” applies equally to mostly natural and mostly human – both of which are combinations. No one has mentioned yet that this is a combination of five annual surveys of 1,000 responses (or did I read this wrong?). If so, it likely is homogenized in that skepticism has increased since 2010, so early data would increase the five year totals and mask trends that might occur. The over-lapping questions obviate meaningful analysis, and use of terms like “most” provide no depth of understanding of responses. The lack of demographic profiles of respondents make the comments about “how stupid we Canadians are” nothing but an admission of author bias. This study is a joke- little wonder that they released it before even submitting it for peer review. Four poorly worded questions spread over five years with total responses of about 15 individuals per riding with an error margin of 7% is a joke. They should have given up on anything but a national survey, and reported results for each year. I taught survey design and analysis at a Canadian university for years. I would use this as an example of how NOT to design a survey. Little wonder it blew up!
10
Yes. It’s not just a terrible survey. The way they reported what they did was awful too.
What does
“Don’t know [volunteered]” or “Not sure [volunteered]”
mean exactly?
What do the grey bits in the graphs mean? Presumably they are don’t knows?
If so, why are there (in the latest version after they changed it) 17% don’t knows for “mostly human” question, but none for the “partly or mostly human” question? And if this is the interpretation, there’s a direct contradiction between their reporting of the numbers and the colour coding of the questions in the link provided by Pat.
And why did they change the reporting of the survey, changing the 56% no to 39% no?
Why is the changed value 39% in direct contradiction with their data file (which is not a data file at all, just percentages), which has a column labelled “real_humanOppose” with the number 55.763 in it – matching the 56% number originally reported?
Why is wording used in the reporting of their results, “Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities” different from the question that was actually asked, from the SM section of the paper, “Is the earth getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels or mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?”
These really basic questions, of exactly what they did and what the results are, aren’t answered properly in their web pages or their 33-page paper, which is just full of their own opinions, politics, unnecessary statistical models (Please, just show us the ****ing data!) and more of their own political spin on the results.
It’s a complete scicomm car-crash.
10
23 Feb, 2016 smh:
Age, gender, race: Climate sceptics predominately party political
It has a graph; “How belief in [Global Warming] corelates with social factors”
Of further interest though, is the smh video featuring Australian Academy of Science Fellow, Prof. Brian Schmidt promoting a CSIRO booklet prior to Paris COP21, to convince everyone the science is settled. Quote:
0.46: “In a piece you’ve written for Fairfax today you say, “Having this information in one place means the nation’s decision makers have the best scientific opinion on the subject, so they can stop arguing about the science and instead focus on their job, which is figuring out the most appropriate policy response to [Global Warming], given the best available knowledge.”
It seems Prof. Schmidt also got what he wished for. Settled Science, and the decision to move on.
Also, a reference to a ‘new world order’, though context is vague.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/age-gender-race-climate-scepticism-is-predominantly-party-political-20160222-gn05y0.html
20
‘…barely a quarter of Coalition voters accepted humanity was mostly responsible for climate change, as opposed to 59 per cent of Labor voters and 76 per cent of Greens supporters.’
I’m assuming a quarter of Green voters are lukewarmers, along with a quarter of Coalition voters.
20
posted the following yesterday from Yale’s “In the News” page (see comment #24 Jo’s previous “UK Politics” thread).
the articles were the only 2 entries on the page.
today, they are nowhere to be found at the link; insead the link has a whole pile of CAGW rubbish, the most recent dated 19 Feb:
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: In The News: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
LINK TO CBC…
February 22nd, 2016 · Huffington Post
LINK Rechauffement climatique cause par les humains: une majorite de Canadiens n’y croient pas
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/news-events/category/in-the-news/
20
a number of websites carried Christopher Curtis’s Montreal Gazette piece, “Climate change is real, Canadians say, but causes up for debate: study”, but most cached versions are unavailable. this one has been updated with acknowledgement of changes to the CBC article, but the 44 percent line is no longer in the Montreal Gazette story, which is now so confused it is stating “39 per cent believe it is mostly caused by humans”:
(livenewsca: only an updated CACHED version available: Climate change is real, Canadians say, but causes up for debate: study)
Posted on February 23, 2016
Below is a snapshot of the Web page as it appeared on 22/02/2016 (the last time our crawler visited it). This is the version of the page that was used for ranking your search results. The page may have changed since we last cached it…
AppleMark Only 44% of Canadians believe that the planet is warming mostly because of human activity, it is less than in the US, where 48% of the population adheres to the idea, according to a study released Monday.
“This skepticism was a bit surprised!…
EDITOR’S NOTE: CBC has made changes to this story following clarification by the researchers. An earlier version said that a majority of Canadians surveyed didn’t believe that climate change was caused by humans. In fact, the study found that 61 per …
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Climate+change+is+real%2c+Canadians+say&d=54050532040516255&mkt=en-AU&setlang=en-AU&w=BunPm7uT3xDVmV0dXysfBtlH65EJ5YI0
i was able to download the paper here (PDF 33 pages):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2732935
it includes on page 3:
“At the national level, 79% of Canadians believe climate change is happening but only 44% think climate change is caused mostly by human activities. Relative to the American public then, Canadians are significantly more likely to perceive solid evidence of a global warming trend, and this difference has remained stable over time (Lachapelle et al., 2014, 2012).”
the maps on page 25 and 26 relating to MOSTLY or “partly & mostly” questions show up only low percentages (blues) but i can’t read this stuff properly. perhaps others can. no mention of 56% anywhere.
also don’t know how to establish if there has been any updating/adjusting of the downloaded paper.
30
***LOL.
23 Feb: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: Two-thirds of Canadians back cap-and-trade, study finds
The study, carried out by the University of Montreal, University of California Santa Barbara, Utah State University, Yale University, and University of Essex, found that a majority of residents in every province backed carbon trading, with only 27% opposing the concept.
The remainder was undecided…
***Oddly, a larger percentage of Canadians supported cap-and-trade than believed that the earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities (61%)…
http://carbon-pulse.com/16048/
24 Feb: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: Change in rhetoric could pave way for ‘soft start’ carbon market in Australia -analysts
The biggest impediment for development of an Australian emissions market is not current government policy, but regulatory uncertainty created by the government’s unwillingness to communicate where it intends to go with its Direct Action policy and the safeguard mechanism, analysts Reputex said in a new report.
“We believe that the government may be able to restore certainty to the market by simply changing its rhetoric and more clearly communicating its existing policy to the market,” it said…
http://carbon-pulse.com/16072/
24 Feb: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: Over 200 US lawmakers ask court to overturn Clean Power Plan
More than 200 Republican senators and House representatives on Tuesday filed a legal brief asking a DC court to overturn the Clean Power Plan, saying Congress has not authorised the EPA to reform the nation’s electricity sector.
Led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, 34 senators and 171 House members filed a so-called Amicus brief in support of the lawsuits against President Barack Obama’s and the EPA’s plan to cut carbon emissions in the power sector…
They pointed out that Congress had specifically voted down previous attempts at setting up a cap-and-trade scheme in the US, a key policy option in the EPA’s final rule…
http://carbon-pulse.com/16070/
20
After the next election Greg is going to buy junk carbon credits, who knew? Not scaper.
http://carbon-pulse.com/13356/
30
Dec 14th 2015
Hunt’s comments on Monday gave the clearest signal yet that the government is about to reverse its policy on emissions trading after Malcolm Turnbull replaced ousted Prime Minister Tony Abbott, an opponent of carbon markets.
Yep. A carbon tax from both sides of politics. There will be no ETS in a government I lead. Rubbish.
When can we have Tony Abbott back, who was elected to leadership of the Liberal party and then overwhelmingly as PM on a No Carbon Tax platform.
Why should anyone vote Liberal when Malcolm is more Green than Labour?
70
Jo wanted results of earlier polls. Uni of Montreal has used past polls, so this one is probably one of them.
btw HuffPo attributed their article on the latest survey to ICI Radio Canada and Etienne Leblanc.
google translation:
Nov 2013: ICI Radio Canada: Leger poll: Harper must do more against global warming
A majority of Canadians believe that the federal government lacks leadership on the issue of climate change. This is the main conclusion of a survey by the firm Leger conducted in October on behalf of the University of Montreal and Canada in 2020 reflection group…
A Etienne Leblanc text
***According to the survey, 58% of Canadians believe that the phenomenon of global warming is caused by human activities, and a similar portion is of the opinion that a rich country like Canada has a moral obligation to play a role leader in the field.
The survey was conducted by telephone among 1503 Canadians between 10 and 20 October 2013. Interestingly, some of the respondents were joined on their cell. The margin of error is 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.
20
that went through before I posted the rest, which is the original in French:
Nov 2013: ici Radio Canada: Sondage Leger : Harper doit en faire plus contre le rechauffement climatique
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnement/2013/11/06/002-sondage-canadiens-harper-changement-climatique.shtml
20
Pat: “ici” is “This is”. In this case, the French Language Network of Radio Canada aka CBC.
00
interview with Lachapelle, says only 44% believe CC is mostly caused by humans; doesn’t mention 56% said No.
VERY IMPORTANT: if only 39% said No, Uni of Montreal would have pointed to that, and not to the poor figure of 44% who believed CC was MOSTLY caused by humans:
23 Feb: VIDEO: 3mins52secs: Global News: Morning News Montreal: Do Canadians believe about climate change?
Camille Ross and Université de Montréal professor Erick Lachapelle discuss how it can help define where to pinpoint outreach efforts.
http://globalnews.ca/video/2534541/what-do-canadians-in-every-riding-believe-about-climate-change
20
Weather Network’s Daniel Martins has not changed his piece, which quotes the 56%. he also has the original map with 44 and 56 percent shown, no GREY areas.
22 Feb: The Weather Network: Study: Canadians split on whether humans hurt the climate
Daniel Martins, Digital Reporter
But when humanity’s impact is factored into the equation, things get much more split, especially when respondents were asked to consider whether humans were mostly to blame.
***On that score, fewer than half of Canadians, 44 per cent, agreed, compared to 56 per cent who were opposed.
Quebec, at 52 per cent, was the only province where a majority of respondents believed humans were mostly to blame. Alberta, at 28 per cent, was dead last…
***STUDY MAP
Canada
Caption: Yes 44% No 56%
Image: University of Montreal/Yale Project on Climate Change Communication/University of California Santa Barbara/Utah State University…
***(2 LINKS) SOURCE: University of Montreal Climate Change | Press release
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/study-canadians-split-in-whether-humans-hurt-the-climate/64015
80 comments (plenty of Canadian sceptics) including:
Colleen Rogers – The article’s headline should have been “Majority of Canadians Do Not Believe Climate Change is Man Made” This shows, majority of Canadians don’t drink the Agenda 21 KoolAid. Of course climates change, ten thousand years ago, Canada had a sheet of ice about 3 kilometers thick. Global warming melted most of it, thank goodness.
11 hours ago
***LINK to “University of Montreal Climate Change” now goes to “404 page not found. The page you requested was not found.”
LINK to Press Release goes to the following. note the use of ***”MANY”:
Uni of Montreal Press Release: What do Canadians in every riding believe about climate change?
Lundi, 22 Fevrier 2016 09:00
“Our research shows that across the country, a majority of Canadians are aware of the problem of rising global temperature on Earth, and ***MANY believe humans are directly contributing to this warming. This is true across Canadian regions and across the urban-rural divide as well”, said one of the project’s lead researchers, University of Montreal Professor Erick Lachapelle…
Media contact
Benjamin Augereau
Universite de Montréal
http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20160222-how-widespread-are-canadian-beliefs-about-climate-change.html
30
22 Feb: SiverTimes: Global warming caused by humans: a majority of Canadians do not believe
The researchers also asked Canadians if they agreed with a proposal widely recognized by science, that global warming is mostly caused by human activities.
Across the country, a minority of Canadians – 44% – agree with that statement…
With these numbers, Canada is now comparable to the US, where 48% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activities…
http://sivertimes.com/global-warming-caused-by-humans-a-majority-of-canadians-do-not-believe/11002
40
‘Currently, only Quebec is participating in a cap-and-trade system, with California, and it is in this province that the solution collects the most support.’
Its now becoming crystal clear.
20
24 Feb: ABC: Kieran Jones: CSIRO workers ‘stressed, upset’ as they wait for information on job cuts
CSIRO research fellow John Church said the lack of clarity was taking a toll on staff.
“Clearly staff are stressed, upset about their future,” he said.
“They’re dismayed about the performance of the CSIRO executive.
“Clearly there’s not as much consultation as many people would like, and clearly there’s a lack of understanding from our leadership on what it is exactly they’re cutting.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/csiro-workers-still-in-the-dark-on-jobs-after-meeting/7196522
24 Feb: Guardian: Amanda Meade: Mark Scott lets fly at $350m cut to ABC funding by Abbot government
The ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, has used his final address to slam the Abbott government for breaking its promise to maintain funding for the public broadcaster and stripping it of $350m after the election.
He dismissed the ABC’s critics as “newspaper polemicists and shock jocks”, saying it was governments that posed the greatest threat to the ABC, which was a vital part of Australian culture.
In his final speech to the National Press Club after 10 years running the ABC, Scott said it was up to the Turnbull government to make up for the repeated cuts and show its commitment to the ABC and to “clear election promises” in the tri-funding budget outcome in May.
Scott suggested the government save $40m of the $1.3bn public broadcasting budget by making SBS part of the ABC’s network…
Scott said the ABC entered the last election campaign with commitments from all major parties to maintain funding of the ABC.
“Of course, the reason the promise was made, deliberately – and repeated often before and after the election by Tony Abbott – was because politicians know how popular the ABC is,” he said in Canberra. “The public appreciates its value. They don’t want its funding cut…
Scott said the ABC once had a much bigger budget – around $200m more in real terms – and 2000 more staff but produced a fraction of the content it does today.
“Not only was it a bigger organisation, its share of GDP and slice of the overall government budget was much bigger,” he said. “It was 0.14% of GDP 30 years ago – today it’s 0.05%…
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/24/mark-scott-tells-press-club-sbs-could-be-cut-to-one-channel-under-merger-with-abc
let all those who love it, fund it. problem solved.
30
canvassed only the “international climate change community”! lol.
(at least Rudd isn’t in this list, so far)
23 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Who’s in line to be the next UN climate change chief?
The UN wants an official with ‘high professional standing and an intimate knowledge of the issues’ to replace Christiana Figueres when she leaves in July
There’s a well-paid vacancy at the United Nations going this year…
The hunt is on for her (Figueres’s) replacement, the UN job portal is open, the salary in the region of US$200,000.
Applicants need to demonstrate vision, communication skills, experience of working with senior leaders and be a patient sort…
On the downside you have to live in Bonn. ***On the upside it requires a lot of travel so you won’t be there much…
Climate Home has canvassed opinion from the international climate change community – here’s a rundown of the top 10 names being discussed (in no particular order)…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/23/whos-in-line-to-be-the-next-un-climate-change-chief/
20
CBC = Colostomy Bag Catastrophe.
Incidentally CBC won’t allow that as a user name in their comments section.
20
I live on the west coast of Florida. Enough Canadians seek temporary climate change here each year to support a newspaper. It is fair, since they have some seeking a 40 degree temperature swing, to assume a four degree swing is viewed as inconsequential. I actually talk to a few who wish with all their hearts CAGW were real. Look at a map. Imagine what it would do to the Canadian economy to add a strip of land a hundred miles deep and 2000 miles long to the wheat belt. Just sayin….Eh?
40
Ah yes…..
The Communist Broadcasting Corporation
Can’t figure out who is the most irritating Canadian; The CBC, Naomi Klein, or David Suzuki.
20
Mark Fraser – of course I should have realised it was simple French “ici” and not an acronym for something else. it did puzzle me.
finally stumbled across audio of the Radio Canada interview with Erick Lachapelle which disappeared from the HuffPo and Radio Canada pages as noted in comments above. however, I found it on Radio Canada Spanish page and, after Lachapelle speaks at the start, you basically have a woman speaking Spanish for the rest of the 3 minutes.
from a google translation, Lachapelle’s comments are the same as I posted in comment #24 on Jo’s “UK Politics” thread, so won’t post them again here.
what is interesting, is how the article on Radio Canada Spanish begins, note below:
(google translation)
Radio Canada: Canadians divided on the causes of global warming
“All the studies published in scientific journals explained that human activities, in a proportion of 97%, are responsible for global warming”.
He said the UN and in 2013. Certainly, from 90 to 95% of human activity, since 1950, is responsible for global warming, compared to 66% in 2001.
It was repeated in the Paris Summit 2015 where for the first time all countries reach agreement on this important issue, while more than 20 years ago, the United Nations tries to convince and conclude everyone on the importance and necessity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, which are the major contributors to global warming, according to scientists.
However, global warming is an issue of concern to all Canadians but whose causes also divides us.
***(AUDIO: 3mins08secs: listen where u see “Escuche” below first pic which is captioned “Radio Canada”.) (from further down in the article: The interview with Erick Lachapelle was made by Caroline Morneau, Radio Canada)
A new national study released this week shows that only 44% of Canadians believe that climate change must be “primarily” to human activity, although most believe in the reality of the phenomenon…
original page:
24 Feb: RCI Radio Canada: Los canadienses divididos sobre las causas del recalentamiento climático
http://www.rcinet.ca/es/2016/02/24/los-canadienses-divididos-sobre-las-causas-del-recalentamiento-climatico/
having learned Caroline Morneau did the original interview, I managed to find the following, but the AUDIO does not play for me. perhaps it will for someone who speaks French, though I think we know basically what Lachapelle said from the text of the HuffPo and Radio Canada French pieces.
it’s the attempts to disappear everything related to this communication fiasco that is important to document.
(google translation)
ICI Radio Canada: Climatic changes. various perceptions in the country
On Monday, February 22, 2016
Researchers polled Canadians about the reality of climate change according to each federal riding. In British Columbia, 82% of residents are convinced of the existence of global warming and 42% of those surveyed in the province believe that global warming is mostly caused by human activities. Our reporter Caroline Morneau met with one of the main authors of the study, Erick Lachapelle assistant professor and expert opinion polls at Political Science Department of the University of Montreal.
***AUDIO FIL:…
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/phare_ouest/2015-2016/chronique.asp?idChronique=398630
00
I got to thinking about the quandary Leah Stokes found herself in when the CBC headline of her opinion survey hit the airwaves. On the one hand, Ms. Stokes had to realize that a public outcry on her part would increase public awareness of her opinion poll with the likely result that many of the heretofore unaware populace would agree more with the CBC headline than with her rebuke and alternate interpretation. Bottom line, she had to at least consider the idea that a public outcry on her part might do more harm than good to the AGW cause.
On the other hand, if she remained silent and let the headline slide, the funders of AGW opinion polls might decide that she wasn’t a true believer, and funding future Leah Stoke’s opinion surveys might be detrimental to the “cause.”
What to do? What to do?
Like many if not most AGW believers, she decided that “cause be damned” it’s better to be a funded member of the cabal than it is to advance the cabal’s position.
Bravo!
00
[…] Most Canadians are skeptics, and CBC accidentally says so, then “edits” story […]
00
The public and scientists are not really different in their opinions. That 97% consensus figure for scientists is, as we all know, a complete nonsense and fabrication. The coverup with regard to what the public really thinks is minor league compared to the coverup with respect to what scientists think. At least they actually survey the pubic. They dare not properly survey scientists.
10
Where did Stokes’ Tweet go? It is no longer at https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/701851679466115072
00