Despite ostracism, namecalling, and billions of dollars, globally nearly 4 in 10 are climate skeptics

By Jo NovaPerson typing on a laptop. Responding online.

Even though climate deniers are the most hated, reckless, planet destroying people, who are excluded from dinner parties, and hounded from office, there are somehow still a lot of them. As many as 37% of the population of 30 countries were still willing to tell a pollster that they think climate change was “mainly caused by natural phenomena”.

The poll was conducted by EDF, the French state owned electricity giant.

This clearly is not what the IPCC has been hammering home for 30 years.

Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic

Global Poll Shock

According to a worldwide IPSOS survey covering two-thirds of the world’s population, nearly four people in every 10 believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes. The degree of scepticism over human-caused global warming will shock the ‘settled’ science green catastrophists, who use constant scare tactics to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda.

EDF seems rather bemused by its findings. It suggests that populations are noting the occurrence of what it calls “extreme climate events”, but this is not making them “more concerned, nor is it convincing them of the human origins of the phenomenon”.

Decades of relentless climate catastrophising, characterised by far-fetched predictions and forecasts that never materialise, is starting to take its toll. Perhaps, people are just getting tired of being scared all the time, all to no avail. Global warming ran out of steam at the end of the last century, despite the upward adjustments made regularly by corrupted surface temperature datasets. This year in particular has been a disaster for doomsters with coral growing back in record amounts, Arctic summer sea ice and, possibly, the Greenland ice sheet increasing in mass, and annual hurricane energy falling by 33%. Living by the sword means dying by it, although of course there is a constantly moving conveyor belt whipping up new hysteria about ‘extreme weather’ events.

Things are changing fast as energy bills bite:

EDF notes that climate skepticism has grown by six points over the last three years, while skepticism in France grew by eight points in a single year.

It takes an industrial wall of censorship of keep the simple truth from reaching most people

Imagine how big that number would be if Sixty Minutes interviewed people like Harrison Schmidt, who walked on the moon fifty years ago, and asked him why he was skeptical? Or Ivar Giaver, who won a Nobel Prize in Physics? If Channel Nine played documentaries on historic heatwaves, or thermometers next to blistering tarmacs, or exhaust vents, the Bureau of Meteorology would fix those sites in a flick, and trim their hyperbolic heatwave emergencies. If the BBC ran debates on climate change, and actually found the best people from both sides to put their reputation on the line in public, the science wouldn’t look so settled.   Without relentless bullying the whole faith system would unravel in a few weeks.

After propaganda that starts in primary school  and climate porn bushfires and floods in the news every year, if people aren’t already sold on it, they’re not going to be:

 Populations are not reacting in the same way everywhere. 55% of Australians (+24 pts) mentioned the flooding that hit their country this year. Nevertheless, their sense of being confronted with climate change is still lower than elsewhere and is not growing.

Climate change is a rich mans fashion:

The environment is still a priority for the upper categories: while it ranks 2nd (44%) among the most affluent households, just after the increase in the cost of living, it ranks only 6th among lower-income households (36%), behind poverty and inequality (49%), unemployment (44%), the health system (41%) but also corruption.

Interestingly age is not the predictor of belief that it used to be?

Age does not appear to be a divisive criterion on this subject: the level of climate-skepticism is very similar in all age categories. Political tendency is more decisive on the other hand: in the seven countries where this political question was asked[2], 28% of supporters of the left turned out to be climate skeptics as opposed to 50% of supporters of the right.

The young rebels against the dogma must be rising.

REFERENCE

Climate change: a growing skepticism, IPSOS Poll

Photo: Andrew Neel Unsplash

10 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

141 comments to Despite ostracism, namecalling, and billions of dollars, globally nearly 4 in 10 are climate skeptics

  • #
    el+gordo

    ‘ … extreme climate events …’ (IPSOS)

    There is no such thing, they should say severe weather events.

    490

    • #
      Mike Jonas

      Oh I think there are climate events, it’s just that they don’t start on Wednesday and are over by Friday. The last glacial termination would be a suitable example, it was quite a significant climate event (maybe not extreme, in climate terms) and it took place over several thousand years. Now maybe it did actually start on a Wednesday, and maybe it also ended on a Friday, but there were a few thousand Thursdays in between.

      190

    • #
      William

      Or storm, or thunderstorm, or hailstorm, or cyclone, or drought, or flood, or – I could go on. Why is there a need to dramatise the weather with “extreme” and other extreme adjectives?

      90

    • #
      Leo G

      extreme climate events

      Solstices. Summer and winter are the two extremes.

      100

    • #
      Dianeh

      The Darling river has taken up most of my backyard (stopped by a very large, very high permanent levee).

      We and all our neighbours now have ‘extreme’ river views.

      It is a running joke in this area.

      Since the flooding hasn’t hit 1956 levels, the locals don’t consider this an ‘extreme’ flooding event.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    These figures are better than nothing but I find it alarming that 63% of people still believe in the anthropogenic global warming fraud.

    It’s indicative of how Western society is no longer dominated by Enlightenment ideas such as science and reason but dogma and propaganda.

    It is the result of the deliberate “dumbing down” of the education system over the last 50 years or so.

    591

    • #
      GreatAuntJanet

      In the same way, how many of the public have been misled by ‘scientists’, the pharmaceutical industry and medical professionals (because they have been enabled by complicit politicians) regarding covid and the vaccines?

      This clip has just been put out by Dr John Campbell, of UK MP Andrew Bridgen speaking bravely and comprehensively in a debate in parliament. Truth is being spoken here – loudly and clearly.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MSKzoI72eU

      80

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Also bear in mind that polls are skewed by asking questions where they no answer already.

      Polls are about as accurate as the climate changes, sea level rise, hurricane predictions, polar bear extinctions. I could go on but it’s really boring as we all know what the hoax is really about!!

      80

    • #
      Dave in the States

      and the propaganda mills.

      30

  • #
    A happy little debunker

    worldwide IPSOS survey

    This is not how science works … this is how politics is decided.
    And then the EDF wonder why so many are skeptical ???

    150

  • #

    The poll confirms what I have believed for a long time… a lot of people believe what they are told on mainstream media and what BS politicians peddle, and do little to no research to confirm they are being told the truth. I have purchased and read most of Prof Ian Plimers books and quite a few other people who have put up a good argument that AGW is utter nonsense. Asking around amongst people I talk to or meet and the topic of climate change comes up, just about all get there climate change indoctrination from the media and those same idiot politicians.

    Lately, since it has started to actually hit peoples finances hard, there seems to be a bit more interest…but only because $$$ are involved.

    370

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    And the trend is? Every year less and less of the surveyed population take the climate sceptic view.

    257

    • #
      b.nice

      WRONG again..

      It only appears that way because of the massive propaganda campaigns.

      As you have clearly shown many times… There is ZERO real science supporting the conjecture of human released CO2 causing changes in the climate.

      Even you must KNOW by now, that it is a total myth.. but cannot bring yourself to admit that fact.

      381

    • #
      b.nice

      “less and less of the surveyed population take the climate sceptic view”

      “EDF notes that climate skepticism has GROWN by six points over the last three years

      Basic comprehension, is not PF’s thing… ever. !

      251

    • #
      David Maddison

      Every year less and less of the surveyed population…

      So, you are saying that scientific fact is decided by consensus?

      Then you are talking about propaganda, not science.

      Please don’t corrupt the idea of science by falsely stating it has anything to do with consensus.

      231

    • #
      Shannon Pace

      Peter, when alarmists & scaremongers like yourself can answer these three questions scientifically, then you can get back to the rest of us who want to live our lives, free of interference & greed.

      By what scientifically measurable amount does climate vary naturally?
      How much scientifically measurable warmth does a given amount of CO2 add to our climate?
      What is the optimum CO2 atmospheric concentration?

      231

      • #
        David Maddison

        What is the optimum CO2 atmospheric concentration?

        Personally, I’d like to see 800-1200ppm.

        Had CO2 not started to increase naturally, we were heading for a mass extinction event as plants don’t survive below 150-200ppm CO2 depending on which photosynthetic route they use.

        321

    • #

      Yes Peter – we have a typical leftist response on warming. When the wild eyed predictions from broken models do not come to pass we have further doubling down, further attacks on those asking questions and even more propaganda.

      Why not just admit that CO2 is a trace gas and rising levels have virtually nothing to do with global temperatures. In the next 2 or 3 years when the solar cycle turns we will see substantial cooling and how long will alarmists be able to keep up the ranting about global warming?

      221

      • #
        Adellad

        Puh-leeze Prophet may you be proven correct. I am scared that after 3 years of La Nina we face a bloody El Nino summer maybe 2023/4 with the commensurate screeching from the ABC and other leftist rhymes-with-anchors.

        31

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas”

    “Let It Snow, Let It Snow (repeat)”

    Mountainwatch dot com have some LOVELY webcam pics of Australia’s ski fields COVERED in [global warmink] snow, this 14th day of December 2022. From Perisher, NSW in the north, to Hotham & Baw Baw, VIC in the south, the hills are alive with the Sound Of Snowflakes ❄️

    Can’t quite hear Jingle Bells yet, though it looks like Santa’s come early this year. Greens must be Red with embarrassment – and confusion – their faith & belief in FIRE has let them down, failed them, in their time of greed. Run for the hills… it’s freezing 😃

    321

    • #
      b.nice

      “Can’t quite hear Jingle Bells yet”

      The lady two doors down is a “Christmas lights” fanatic.

      She has this thing that plays “Jingle Bells” from about 5pm to 10pm every night in December.

      I can’t NOT hear “Jingle Bells” ! !

      101

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Ouch, I feeeel your pain. Couldn’t you sneak out at night and [SNIP] her wires? Or better still, play Booker T & The MGs’ ‘Green Onions’ real LOUD! ‘Tis the silly season after all…

        80

        • #
          b.nice

          Nah, we are all good friends.. And her hubby insists the “tunes” gets turned off at 10pm.

          But.. does anyone know what the very worst “Christmas” CD is? 😉

          I have some live-band PA gear I could use on the back veranda. 😉

          71

          • #
            GreatAuntJanet

            Bob Dylan’s Christmas album – Christmas in the Heart. As appalling as it sounds… have yourself a merry little Christmas!

            40

      • #
        KP

        On par with ‘Greensleeves’ from the ice cream man all weekend in summer…

        50

  • #
    Petros

    Which books would people recommend as gifts to give to the ignorant climate change cultists to try to change their simple minds? They would have to be quite basic.

    80

    • #
      RickWill

      You have to recognise that anyone who still believes the global warming chist is not real bright. So they need simple messages. I recommend this one:
      My Country
      by Dorothea MacKellar and Andrew McLean | 1 January 2020

      A simple story with pretty pictures. It them opens the discussion on how it used to be before global warming took its toll.

      This one has Said Hanrahan, which captures the weather extremes in Australia. The book has good reviews but maybe not so much on the weather.
      100 Australian Poems: You Need to Know Hardcover – 1 December 2016

      Things like “Climate Change” the facts will go to the bin, a waste of money.

      I think air conditioners have largely liberated Australians from appreciating our weather in its wide array.

      90

    • #
      GreatAuntJanet

      10 Global Trends Every Person Should Know by Marian Tupy. SOUNDS like it might be alarmisty, but is actually an upbeat, uplifting examination of the facts. They might actually start to read it!

      30

    • #
      KP

      A business card with JoNova’s address on.. tell them to check in here every night!

      10

    • #
      Robert Austin

      Waste of money and paper. In my experience climate change alarmists will not listen to or discuss any facts that might diverge from the narrative. They merely recite the incantation about the “vast majority of scientists”. It’s seems that discovering climate change (which it does and always has) is possibly benign to beneficial would be bad news.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Connected to this survey by Institut Public de Sondage d’Opinion Secteur is the idea of most of the Left that scientific fact is decided by “consensus”.

    That’s not how science works, although tragically many “scientists” (and medical doctors) are now terrified of going against the “consensus”, or worse, are themselves the product of dumbed-down university “degrees”.

    The Left cancels, defunds and sacks/fires anyone who doesn’t follow their decrees. And they are absolutely ruthless about it. This is also reflected in the Left’s terror of new or alternative ideas and heavy censorship in all media and publishing platforms under their control.

    Scepticism, not consensus, is the very FOUNDATION of science (and medicine).

    And yet real science and real medicine are under heavy attack by the Left, just like all other Enlightenment ideas and values.

    When the “consensus” was against Einstein and there was a book published “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), Einstein’s response was simply that “to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact”. Obviously the consensus opinion was massively wrong. Every single idea of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity has been proven correct even after over 100 years.

    201

    • #

      David, not correct. Einstein was not good at maths. At least one of his equations is dimensionally wrong. I think there are some Youtube videos on space science proves that. Also, look at the web site of Prof. Claes Johnson who is a professor at KTH in Sweden and one of the worlds top mathematician.He also has proved that Prantle was wrong with boundary layers and lift with flight in Fluid dynamics.

      10

  • #
    nb

    Honestly, I think if we turn off some more nuclear reactors and remove fossil fuels from the economy, and make people buy electric cars while turning off electricity sources, people will come to their senses and believe in climate change. Also, I want to see more of Justin Trudeau and Hillary Clinton. Integrity and logic seeps from their pores. I put ‘private jet’ on my Christams list. Can’t wait. One day everyone will have one.

    130

  • #
    Ross

    Prior to the mid 1990’s at least the whole AGW subject was still essentially a scientific debate. Then it got largely taken over by politics and the whole debate became warped. Now, it’s been in the political world for nearly 30 years, so where you originally had scepticism you now have cynicism. The latter came about because of all the private jets being used to fly celebrities and politicians to the COP & IPCC gabfests. As the power bills increase, jobs disappear, travel habits are affected and the lights go out that cynicism will turn very quickly into anger.

    190

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      Coprolites (n), fossilised faeces, dried/preserved animal excrement.

      Coprolite (n) slang, member of COP Cult who flies 1st-class and/or by private jet to warm tropical venues, each and every year – similar to animal migrations – to warn us of the ex!stent!al danger of living this way…

      160

      • #
        Annie

        Once having seen coprolite used for any attendee to the ‘climate’ gabfests; I’ll never be able to find another term to use in its place!

        110

        • #
          Annie

          🙂 Lots of fossilised lightweight ‘minds’…what a perfect term for them. I’ll be laughing all day at the thought!

          60

      • #
        b.nice

        “Coprolites (n), fossilised faeces, dried/preserved animal excrement.”

        That is what Tim Flannery actually may know something about, isn’t it… his one possible area of expertise?

        He sure as h*** knows absolutely nothing about climate.

        61

    • #
      Ross

      Also, this. Congratulations to all the proselytizers (love that word, almost as good as Coprolite) of climate doom, you have finally demonstrated an actual adverse impact of climate change that is actually caused by humans – psychological distress.

      50

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN have a look at Willis Eschenbach’s search for their so called “CLIMATE EMERGENCY” , but alas the data proves that it doesn’t exist.
    But this doesn’t stop the liars and the con merchants because they have the MSM, most reporters, most clueless pollies, most so called scientists etc to rally the troops.
    Willis provides graphs data etc for all of their cherished fantasy world BS and fraud and each so called emergency is easily dismantled, point by point.
    BTW Dr John Christy recently exposed their BS and fraud and he also demolished their so called HOT SPOT fantasy as well.
    So can anyone point out where Willis is wrong?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

    120

  • #
    Serge Wright

    The big disparity in belief of CC alarmism from conservative versus left wing is interesting. I think this clearly shows that left-wing people are far more susceptible to indoctrination and therefore more likely to believe anything they are told by their hierarchy, even when there is clear evidence to contradict the narratives. The COVID virus and vaccine were excellent test cases of this behaviour, with denial of the lab leak and immediate acceptance of the natural evolution theory, despite all evidence pointing the other way. And in the case of the vaccine, an almost complete denial of any link to serious adverse effects or alternative treatments and a willingness to follow crazy mask and lockdown orders without any questioning of the value or dangers.

    It would be interesting to do psychological studies on members of the left to understand how these people can be programmed to accept any information as blind faith, whereas conservative thinkers will seek alternative viewpoints in order to frame a broader understanding. Perhaps what’s even more interesting from the left wing group is the level of hostility they express when they see people dare to question their narratives, as we note when it relates to CC, where only the most extreme negative outcomes are allowed to be aired and everything outside that box must be censored and offending individuals vilified.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      It would be interesting to do psychological studies on members of the left

      This makes a good start. It is way too long to post here in full.

      It is an American article so “liberal” = “Leftist”. Actually, just like in Australian politics come to think of it.

      https://theworthyhouse.com/2018/11/04/on-the-subjective-mental-state-of-liberals/

      On the Subjective Mental State of Liberals

      written by Charles Haywood

      [..]

      By liberal, I do not mean classical liberal, or even the American moderate Left that until the 1960s was ascendant in the Democratic Party.  Rather, I mean left-liberal, or progressive, the ideology of cultural Marxism, of the Frankfurt School, now dominant in the Democratic Party, as it has been dominant for some time in the academic world and in other worlds controlled by the Left, such as the media-entertainment complex.  What goes on behind their eyes?  To a neutral observer, the externally visible political actions of today’s liberals are irrational and incoherent.  The simplest explanation for their behavior is that liberals are people of low intelligence, and that they are not educated (whatever degrees they may have).  An alternative simple explanation is that they desire evil and hide that desire, so their actions and stated reasons do not match.  But, while both are possible explanations, it seems unlikely that that any of this is how they perceive the world and their actions.  So again—what are the qualia of a liberal?

      [..]

      The first quale is that liberals do not see reality as it is.

      [..]

      The second quale, related to but distinct from their divorce from reality, is that liberals use key words, first inside their heads and then spoken out loud, only after mentally assigning them new meanings designed to serve their abstract political goals.  

      [..]

      The third quale, again related but distinct, is emotivism ruling rationality.  Any matter perceived by a liberal that affects his political worldview is not analyzed objectively, nor are his conclusions supported logically, but rather with unbridled emotion.

      [..]

      The fourth quale is breathtaking arrogance, blended with a nebulous, yet unshakeable, conviction of their own moral superiority, both tied to the belief that history is a wave and liberals are destined to ride it like the Silver Surfer. 

      SEE LINK FOR REST

      91

    • #
      Dave in the States

      “I think this clearly shows that left-wing people are far more susceptible to indoctrination and therefore more likely to believe anything they are told by their hierarchy, even when there is clear evidence to contradict the narratives.”

      One thing I have observed is that leftist often defer to “experts” rather than thinking it out, or seeking to understand it more thoroughly, themselves.

      31

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Serge:
      I think you have it back to front in that people become leftist because they are gullible. Then they are trained to be non-thinking.

      I was a socialist (for about 2 weeks) as a young Uni student surrounded by believers. What changed my mind was a book about Socialist Communities in Australia. (I wish I had noted the author). He set out (among lots of other cases) a history of towns on the River Murray in South Australia and how they had been founded by socialists. Starting from a Camp at Morgan set up by the State Government for work relief for the unemployed. It wasn’t actually socialist but there were many believers who decided to found a Socialist paradise at Waikerie. After 2 year of strife most of the believers (plus some new recruits) headed up river and founded a new town Loxton? Barmera? After some time of strife the true believers (now reduced in numbers) headed up-stream and founded a new town, which rapidly collapsed. It dawned on me that if the most enthusiastic of the believers couldn’t make it work then there was no way Socialism could survive in a democracy.
      Yet there are people who claim that Socialism only collapses because of sceptical outsiders, hence their hostility and refusal to hear what they are determined not to hear. So they seek only what reinforces their beliefs e.g. the ABC, BBC, and.. add your own choice.

      60

      • #
        KP

        Nah, simpler than that, Socialists promise to take from the rich and give to the poor, so the poor, mainly being more stupid than the rest, become leftists.

        Anyone with brains becomes a Capitalist, realising the value of hard work when you’re the Boss, and ends up looking for the easy money by implementing the Socialists’ stupid ideas, like solar, wind, hydrogen etc. When it all fails they just move on to the next big idea that the Socialists have had.

        10

      • #
        Kevin Kilty

        There is a long list of socialist communes in the U.S. founded at various times, all of which failed in a couple of years.

        00

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s another quick way you can test your understanding of the REAL CLIMATE etc of the REAL WORLD.
    Just leave their CLIMATE fantasies to the Witches, hobgoblins and fairies.
    The co2 Coalitions’ quiz should be fairly easy for most on Jo’s blog, because they are smarter and understand that the REAL world data is the only answer that counts.
    I passed with 100% correct on my first try and I’m sure most of Jo’s bloggers will do okay.

    https://co2coalition.org/quiz/polar-bear-populations-are-in-decline/

    70

  • #
    John Galt III

    I have been a happy, knowledgeable skeptic now for 47 years.

    Geography Major and Climatology Minor 1975 – University of Wisconsin

    Dr. Reid Bryson Head of Climatology Department at that time: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

    180

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”It takes an industrial wall of censorship of keep the simple truth from reaching most people”

    And getting more difficult for the media to swing the “simple truth” too. Sky News (UK)’s latest effort:

    Why is it so cold in spite of climate change?

    Global heating is a long-term trend, but that does not dictate that each year is warmer than last.

    https://news.sky.com/story/why-is-it-so-cold-even-though-climate-change-is-making-the-world-hotter-12766678

    Problem with that – apart from the dichotomy – is that, after natural variation is removed, the “long-term trend” is now only in the CO2-forced models – not in the observations.

    Even the warm-biased GISTEMP shows the wild disparity between NH and SH:

    GISTEMP – Hemispheric Temperature Change
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

    SH 2021 (0.55) was little different to 2002 (0.54) after the effects of the 2015/16 El Nino (natural variation) had passed through the system. Statistical 5yr smoothing of observations is the the only apples-to-apples obs-models comparison that should ever be made (which John Christy adheres to).

    5yr smoothing and that NH-SH disparity is is why you never see graphs of SH vs Models. Probably a graph somewhere but you’ll either have to really dig or do it yourself with time and effort. The global mean is much preferred to obscure the simple truth (and see next comment).

    But then, the header could read:

    “Why is it so cold – is it climate change?”

    90

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”The global mean is much preferred to obscure the simple truth”

      When the NH-SH disparity is addressed it gets a bit awkward. Example:

      Rising temperature difference between hemispheres could dramatically shift rainfall patterns in tropics
      https://news.berkeley.edu/2013/04/02/shifting-rainfall-patterns-in-tropics/

      While the average temperature of the Earth is increasing as a result of dramatic increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, the Earth is not warming uniformly. In particular, the greater amount of land mass in the north warms up faster than the ocean-dominated south, Chiang said. He and his colleagues argue that climate scientists should not only focus on the rising global mean temperature, but also the regional patterns of global warming.

      I suspect a general reluctance among climate scientists to make that their life’s work. Why focus on the SH when, in terms of temperature, there is effectively zero climate change over the last 27 years:

      GFS 2m-T Anomaly [1981-2010 base]
      http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png

      Brave of Chiang but where’s the business case?

      40

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >” getting more difficult for the media to swing the “simple truth” too”

      Some differing media perspectives documented here:

      An Awful Chilly Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere
      By Linnea Lueken -June 27, 2022
      https://climaterealism.com/2022/06/an-awful-chilly-global-warming-in-the-southern-hemisphere/

      Examples:

      Daily Mail has no such reservations, saying that “[t]he lead researcher on a major investigation into ocean currents altered by global warming told Daily Mail Australia that the changes making wet, cooler weather more likely for Australia are already underway.”

      But wait—wet, cooler weather will be more common in Australia due to climate change? What happened to all those climate alarmists claiming that Australia was to be totally desiccated while being engulfed in heat waves?

      And,

      Outlets around the world are reporting on the cold start of Winter in the Southern Hemisphere: Nature World News reports Tasmania is suffering from an “Antarctic blast;” The Associated Press says homeless in Brazil suffer due to “unusually low temperatures;” France 24 says “experts are not ruling out climate change,”—of course.

      Experts? Thinking people see through this BS.

      70

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”you never see graphs of SH vs Models. Probably a graph somewhere but you’ll either have to really dig…”

      Ok, did that for anomalies but found nothing. Did find this for absolute temperature (click Read full-text):

      ‘Annual and semiannual cycles of midlatitude near-surface temperature and tropospheric baroclinicity: reanalysis data and AOGCM simulations’ (2017)

      This has absolute 2m-T time series in Kelvin (yay!) and Figure 2 has NH and SH plotted (obs reanalysis only):

      Figure 2: Monthly mean time series (1979-2015) of ERAI surface temperature (T 2 m ) averaged over (a) the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and (b) Southern Hemisphere (SH) midlatitudes (30-60 • N and 30-70 • S, respectively). Units are in kelvin.
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valerio-Lembo/publication/305304903/figure/fig11/AS:667932833087489@1536259005051/Monthly-mean-time-series-1979-2015-of-ERAI-surface-temperature-T-2-m-averaged-over.png

      Obviously except for the cycle the NH series is completely different to the SH. And both series bear no resemblance whatsoever to the GISTEMP – Hemispheric Temperature Change anomaly graph upthread.

      Even by eye there is no warming trend in the SH in terms of absolute temperature, or any trend – it’s flat. So obviously there is no greenhouse gas “forcing” occurring in absolute SH temperature.

      That’s not even evidence of climate “change” let alone climate change “mainly caused by natural phenomena”.

      30

  • #
    Kim

    Go sceptics!!!

    [This is a 1.3 MB PDF download comprising 163 pages of highly referenced information supporting a sceptical view of the whole AGW / CC issue. Very interesting and a compendium of active references. – LVA]

    80

    • #

      Kim,
      I expect it’s safe.
      I expect you’re on the level, too.
      But – out of an abundance of caution – I shall not download a file completely unknown to me.

      Be well!

      Auto

      [It is a safe download. I sandboxed it, scanned it, and then opened it and tested links. No issues. – LVA]

      10

  • #
    yarpos

    Only anecdotal I know but I have noted that none of our now 30 something kids or their friends believe in climate alarmism, even though they are very keen on other greenish areas of practical environment care. One of the main challenges they have is giving their kids a wider view than the force feed hysteria from school teachers.

    150

  • #
    Neville

    Dr Judith Curry has agreed to write a monthly article on climate for Sky News Australia and here’s her number one, about their so called Climate Emergency.

    https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/the-faux-urgency-of-the-climate-crisis-is-giving-us-no-time-or-space-to-build-a-secure-energy-future/news-story/b860d3358b65027049b148921f038db6

    100

  • #

    Yes, the population is concerned about the Environment and rightly so. But, Climate Alarmism? Not everyone it appears. Great Stuff. Thanks Jo.

    50

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    People are waking up to all these climate alarmist lies, we will win and the tide will turn . .

    70

  • #
    Neville

    BTW even WIKI has now updated their co2 emissions graph from 1970 to 2021 and boy China has taken off AGAIN.
    China is now well over 12000 million tonnes and heading towards 13000 million tonnes.
    Then look at the combined USA + EU co2 emissions graphs since 1970 and please start to WAKE UP.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      Wikipedia is now generally very woke. Like nearly all institutions it’s been taken over by the Left. That’s why I stopped donating to them.

      Nevertheless, I am pleasantly surprised that they haven’t censored this “dangerous” information.

      51

  • #
    Anton

    They can’t stop us meeting in cafes and bars, where I (for one) am happy to tell people that I have a doctorate in electron physics of the upper atmosphere and don’t believe that global warming of dangerous magnitude due to human carbon dioxide emissions is taking place.

    What this shows is how staggeringly unrepresentative of the common man the mainstream media are. And, happily, how the mainstream man recognises that they talk utter twaddle.

    131

    • #
      Yonason

      “They can’t stop us meeting in cafes and bars, – Anton

      That’s what COVID was for, a justification for the restrictions preventing us from communicating with each other.

      81

  • #
    Anton

    The coldest Antarctican winter since measurements began was… 2021.

    The greatest November snowcover in the Northern Hemisphere since records began in 1967 was.. last month, 2022.

    Global warming, anyone?

    150

    • #
      David Maddison

      I hooe Australia’s Bureau of Meterology isn’t recording those temperatures.

      If so, they’d “homogenise”, by their secret, unwritten process the temperatures with tropical Darwin and claim Antarctica will be completely melted by next year.

      70

  • #
    BrianTheEngineer

    Snow in the Australian Alps for the next 3 days

    90

  • #

    People have no scientific educational background when it comes to ….. global warming and climate change, so it’s a case of having a very (extremely) limited knowledge, based upon what they are told, and none of those people will proceed down a path of scientific investigation to further that very limited knowledge that they do have, so it’s a case of nodding the head, and having a private (known only to themselves) understanding, and in nearly every case, they will then go along with the masses, and that private understanding will never be publicly mentioned out loud.

    All of that is okay, because to them, the vast number of those people, it’s just talk, and easy enough to just ….. follow everyone else. (and here, wait till all of this crashes and burns, and all of those people then saying ….. yeah, I never really believed it anyway, the classic nudge nudge wink wink)

    However, however, one of the tenets of all of this is the removal of ….. ‘REAL’ electrical power generation, and its replacement with fake electrical power generation.

    Now, again, people have no engineering educational background in that either, so that also is a matter the same as above of just following what is said to them, again having no knowledge or understanding about that either.

    Okay then, here we have the two things. When global warming climate change collapses, it will just be nodding of heads and talk, and go on with life, no really big thing.

    However, remove that REAL electrical power and it will be an entirely different thing. People will be (monumentally) really really angry, (and the rumblings about that may have already even started) and demanding that heads roll for whoever instigated that electrical power failure. And there might even be demonstrations of that public anger.

    See the point here?

    Climate change, and life will just go on without too much difference.

    Not so with the de@th spiral of electrical power supply. That will have a ….. ‘physical’ impact on all of the people.

    Tony.

    251

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Fully agree Tony. The majority have no understanding of mechanical or electrical engineering.
      Just put fuel in the tank or plug into a socket no thought or understanding required.
      But I live in hope, and one day the tide of reality will turn.

      91

    • #
      Muzza

      We need the blackouts to start sooner rather than later. When they start to impact ‘Those of Little Brains’, we might see an awakening. At least I hope so!!

      31

    • #
      KP

      Tony I hope you’re keeping an eye on South Africa, a vibrant go-ahead country when the white Govt handed it over… Since then the usual corruption, nepotism, tribalism, and blunt theft by those appointed in power has pretty well destroyed it, and they are now looking at several hours of rolling blackouts every day.

      They had massive coal stations, a nuclear station in Cape Town, pumped hydro to help, and its all falling over now. A good lesson in what lies ahead for us.

      31

    • #
      Simon Derricutt

      Tony – yes to all you’ve written here, but a relevant quote from “Catch-22” is: “If everyone thought that, I’d be a fool to think any different, Sir!”

      I was in the same state up to a decade ago, thinking that all those prominent scientists couldn’t have been so far wrong in their assertions of the effects of CO2, and of course I did know that the basic premise here is that CO2 will definitely absorb and re-radiate photons around the 15-micron wavelength. A friend however pointed me at the data for temperature/CO2 over a longer period, though, which absolutely shows that CO2 is not a problem.

      However, most of the people I talk to, and also show those graphs of the last couple of thousand years to, don’t get the point because they are told every day by the MSM (or YSM – yellow-stream media or jurinalists) that increased CO2 is an existential problem which will make the world uninhabitable for our kids (and us) Real Soon Now. They are also told every day that “renewables” will deliver cheaper power and that they are the solution to the power cuts they are about to be seeing a lot more of.

      It seems that most people, when faced with data that disproves their beliefs, ignore that data and keep the beliefs, and generally try to bury that inconvenient data where no-one else will find it. A possibly apocryphal quote from Mark Twain is that “you can’t reason someone out of a viewpoint they have not reasoned themselves into”.

      Thus Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the zeitgeist of this era, in the same way as various other Bad Ideas such as Eugenics ruled in their own times, with a majority believing it’s true despite the evidence. Like a lot of catastrophic EOTWAWKI (end of the world as we know it) predictions, the amount of time left before it happens is updated either when the end-date passes or gets too close, and previous failed predictions are dismissed and buried. Rapture didn’t happen… again.

      Looks to me that people will need to go through real-world power cuts with no fossil-fuel backup before they realise that we can’t live without it yet.

      On the bright side, though, there are some other things being developed that used to be thought impossible, and may in a few years deliver cheap electricity. More about that once there’s data available.

      21

  • #
    Arne

    Most of the world believes in a magical sky person , does that make it true?.
    As a good scientist Jo, you know you’ve failed to disprove AGW.

    49

    • #

      According to Arne the anonymous commenter… You’re the one who wants our money to change the weather. Anytime you want to post up that overwhelming evidence, don’t hold back OK.

      151

      • #
        Gee Aye

        I read that as “your failure” was because, like with the magical sky person, AGW cannot be disproved using science.

        37

        • #
          Arne

          No, that’s a dodge that’s very convincing—— on this site, its not in the realm of science.

          26

          • #
            b.nice

            You are correct, AGW is NOT in the realm of science…

            AGW is not based on science, it is based on conjecture and propaganda.

            Some people are total suckers for propaganda.. having zero ability to think for themselves.!

            51

            • #

              Dearest GeeAye, actually Jo (and others) have disproved the Global warming catastrophe and ten years ago.

              There’s a link to it on every single post here called “Evidence” posted at the top right hand column. It goes to Men Made Global Warming Disproved. Posted Oct 2012.

              How long have you been visiting this site Gee Aye? And you’ve never seen that link?

              PS: Gee Aye, you mixed up that thing (the core philosophy of science) — you meant to say CAGW cannot be PROVED with science. If it can’t be disproved, that only shows it isn’t science. Bit fraudian, I mean freudian, right?

              101

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Jo. I was interpreting what you responded to. Your comment is just projecting.

                02

              • #
                Simon

                There is a greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

                17

              • #
                Yonason

                Oh, Simon. 🙄

                Some people will believe anything.

                Referene 4 (Oreskes) and 5 (Cooke) have been thoroughly debunked. If a new crew shows up, and you want go watch in fascination as they continue beating that dead horse, I’m sure you’re welcome. But you’ll please excuse me if I prefer to watch paint dry.

                30

              • #
                b.nice

                So, still absolutely ZERO science.. Ok !!

                Poor Simon.. When are you going to understand that the 97/99% is of people PAID to believe.

                And is totally irrelevant to any actual science. !

                Now.. where is your actual SCIENCE.

                That you have been avoiding presenting for oh so long. !!

                We are STILL waiting ! 🙂

                20

              • #
                el+gordo

                Simon the hypothetical meme ‘that 99% climate scientists believe’ is flawed.

                As global cooling is already upon us it would be wise to simply observe weather and look for CO2 attribution (positive feedback) to support the AGW hypothesis.

                You may want to start with the European and India/Pakistan heat waves?

                00

              • #
                b.nice

                “Your comment is just projecting.”

                And GA.. your comment with trivial, trite and meaningless and not even worth making.

                Bring science.. or do what you always have done before… bring NOTHING !!

                00

          • #
            b.nice

            Arne…. It is noted that Jo suggested you produce some scientific evidence.

            …. and you FAILED !

            41

        • #
          b.nice

          “AGW cannot be disproved using science.”

          That is because AGW is NOT based on science.

          And neither can the Big Bad Wolf, The Wicked Witch, Chicken Little etc…

          Fantasies and fairy tales are like that !!

          We are STILL WAITING for any evidence of human released CO2 affecting climate.

          You know you have NONE !

          51

        • #
          Yonason

          “AGW cannot be disproved using science.” – Gee Aye

          Been there. Done that.
          https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA2DA7F33E2B09673

          Tons here, much of it peer reviewed.
          https://www.c3headlines.com/

          Lots more, too.”, for anyone who wants to find it.

          As Jo writes to Arne, the same holds for Gee Aye; “Anytime you want to post … ‘overwhelming evidence’ [for CO2 causing climate change], don’t hold back.”

          But you have none, and it doesn’t matter, because
          AGW is just a distraction from the fact the elites have plans for us that we must be distracted from thinking about, and especially talking about, because if we do, we might just be able to thwart them.

          10

      • #
        Arne

        As you are making the incredible claim that all the scientific institutions are wrong, the burden of proof is on you. But as you’re stuck in this blog, Its clear you have none.
        You need to get some scientists on board.

        39

        • #

          31,000 scientists were already signed up skeptics years ago before I was blogging. Skeptics outnumber believers but that’s just argument from popularity. We don’t win just because there are more of us (though there are), or because we are better qualified (more Nobel Prize winners in Physics instead of “Peace”). The only thing that matters is the observations, the data, and skeptics have 1000 tide guages, 3000 Argo ocean buoys, 40 years of satellites, 6,000 boreholes, 28 million radiosondes, 89% of 700 islands that aren’t shrinking, and most of the proxies, the lake sediments, the coral data, the stomata, the ice cores, the pollen, etc x 100. All the raw data shows the climate has always changed and the current rate is nothing unusual, and the climate models are wrong.

          131

          • #
            Arne

            So you disproved AGW years ago and skeptical scientists outnumber the ‘believers ?. How’d the peer review go back then ?, why the blogging if you’ve disproved it ?.
            There must be a global conspiracy against you!.

            48

            • #

              Dear Arne, we’ve done all these arguments a decade ago. Was Newton peer reviewed? Does that make him wrong?

              We wouldn’t let people audit their tax returns with two anonymous unpaid “pals” would we, but we’ll transform our energy grid and spend billions with no audit on the science at all.

              You have nothing.

              91

              • #
                Arne

                Comparing yourself to Newton ?,it’ll be Galileo next, his work has been verified over and over, yours hasn’t. You should hand back your degree.

                03

              • #

                I’m not comparing myself to anyone. I am merely a messenger.

                I’m just pointing out you don’t know what the Scientific Method is. Where are your observations? Which instrument were they measured on? I have raw data and you have logical fallacies.

                30

              • #
                Arne

                The sad thing is you do know the scientific method yet ignore it.
                You don’t publish for fear of exposure for poor research and choose to argue with strangers instead.
                That certainly is illogical.

                03

              • #

                You have no evidence or argument Arne. Is this a religion for you, or are you paid to write this?

                30

              • #
                b.nice

                And AGW has NEVER been verified.. Falsified many time.. by real data

                AGW is not science based, it is propaganda based.

                You keep showing us that with your complete inability to present one single bit of real science proving warming by human released CO2.

                You should go back and try to at least pass primary school !

                10

              • #
                Arne

                Of course the cabal is paying me Jo.
                Now , back to why you’re unable to operate in the scientific community ?.

                02

              • #
              • #
                b.nice

                “scientific method”

                Something which Arne has absolutely zero knowledge of.

                Still waiting for your “science”, Arne

                So far nada.. zip… NOTHING !

                Will you keep running away from your total lack of any science

                … while making plaintive, pathetic whinging and whining sounds ? 😉

                You do realise that is all you have managed so far, don’t you. !

                A primary school student could put forward a better argument than you have.

                00

              • #
                b.nice

                Poor Arne.. you really have painted yourself into a corner.

                Now, back to why you are totally unable to present one single piece of scientific evidence to support the AGW scam

                Whinging, and slimy innuendo, is not science.

                But seems to be all you have.

                00

            • #
              b.nice

              Noted that, yet again, Arne totally avoids producing any actual science.

              If you don’t have the science to back up the AGW nonsense, at least have the b**** to admit it. !

              21

            • #
              b.nice

              Using the facade of the “peer-review” argument, just proves two things (at least)

              a. You have never been anywhere near any actual science.. and

              b. You are totally clueless on the purpose of peer-review.

              41

            • #
            • #
              Yonason

              “…skeptical scientists outnumber the ‘believers’?” – Arne

              I don’t know. Since only the skeptical scientists have resoundingly responded…
              https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/arthur-b-robinson-phd
              …and we only hear crickets chirping in the believers’ camp, it sure looks like that might be true.

              But it isn’t believing that matters; it’s the data. So stop playing silly word games, and show us what you’ve got.

              Show us the data!

              10

          • #
        • #
          b.nice

          Poor Arne…

          Duck and weave.. run away from producing any scientific evidence.

          Its your only choice.

          First, and surely the easiest.

          A paper that proves scientifically that human released CO2 causes warming.

          I reckon you can’t even support the very basis of the AGW farce.

          Did you know that the planet is still only a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years?

          …. and far cooler than for nearly all that period.

          Bring your science….. or continue to bring just empty rhetoric.

          Pretty pathetic if you can’t, wouldn’t you say ! 😉

          51

        • #
          b.nice

          Arne.. were you aware that basically every prediction of climate alarmism has FAILED.

          Were you aware that there is no evidence of warming by human released CO2 anywhere on the planet..

          There is no climate emergency…

          All real data shows the planet is actually in a fairly benign state at the moment.

          You have been sucked in by all the rampant propaganda, without bothering to look at reality itself.

          41

        • #
          Russell

          “… incredible claim that all the scientific institutions are wrong …”
          I guess it’s NOT wrong in your eyes for these institutions just to follow the money or any popular trends.
          News of the world:
          1. Integrity of science reporting – in the toilet (120% yield fusion?).
          2. Credibility of “experts” – Pinocchio country.
          3. Political interference for socialist agenda – disgracefully arrogant and shameless.
          What’s the bet 4 in 10 skeptics is under estimated?

          31

    • #
      b.nice

      Jo has also failed to disprove the Boogie-man, the Big Bad Wolf and the Wicked Witch. !

      One day you will understand that these three things are very similar to AGW… just fairy-tales to scare children and weak-minded.

      71

      • #

        Actually Jo (and others) have disproved the Global warming catastrophe and ten years ago.
        There’s a link to it on every single page here called “Evidence” posted at the top right hand column. It goes to a post titled Men Made Global Warming Disproved. Posted Oct 2012.

        How long have you been visiting this site Gee Aye? And you’ve never seen that link?

        PS: Gee Aye you mixed up that thing (the core philosophy of science) — you meant to say CAGW cannot be PROVED with science.
        If it can’t be disproved, that only shows it isn’t science. Bit fraudian, I mean freudian of you…?

        61

        • #
          b.nice

          Evidence for AGW… absolutely NIL, NADA.. ZIP !!! (as PF, Simon, GA, and now, Arne have shown us)

          Evidence against AGW… basically ALL OF REALITY. !

          21

    • #
      b.nice

      Did you know that there is absolutely no signal of atmospheric warming by CO2 in the last 44 years of real data !

      Did you know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on this, or any other, planet !

      31

    • #
      Grogery

      you’ve failed to disprove AGW

      Don’t wanna burst your bubble, but…

      Considering AGW is merely a theory that is NOT proven (even with all that propaganda), there is nothing to disprove!

      31

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘ … you know you’ve failed to disprove AGW.’

      Carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming and as a consequence global cooling has begun.

      ‘The position of that high pressure system south of Western Australia is the key here.

      ‘The highs are normally centred much further north at this time of year. Because this one is so far south, the air moving anti-clockwise around it is dragging frigid air towards Tasmania and southern mainland Australia from much further south than you’d usually expect at this time of year.

      ‘While showers will ease in most parts later today, the effects of that cold airmass will be with us for at least a couple of days.’
      (Weatherzone)

      11

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    There’s no doubt that many people worldwide are realising thatthis alarmism has been going on for years, but the end of world catastrophe just isn’t happening; climate catastrophe is a myth and a lie to frighten us and destroy our way of life. All to make us poor
    It is going to take some time yet but the tide will turn . .

    111

  • #

    I think the fact that the number was only 37% shows that many people are still too scared to say what they believe.
    Living in Greenie central inner Melbourne most people avoid expressing an opinion until I let my belief known then I find probably 70% plus agree with me but would never say so if they weren’t sure they are in a friendly room.

    121

    • #
      b.nice

      “Belief” in CO2 warming is a form of social status point-making and virtue-seeking.

      It certainly is NOT based on science.

      61

  • #
    Yonason

    Only 4 out of 10?!

    I thought there were more of us.

    I’m curious to know who did the survey.

    51

    • #

      IPSOS. And yes, it all depends on the wording of the question, but almost no one asks the most well written questions anymore. They stopped in about 2015 because about 55% – 60% were skeptical. I covered all those surveys. I couldn’t find the exact wording of the question. It would be good to know. As an online survey it is missing a slice of people too.

      51

  • #
    David Maddison

    As the world cools, and that becomes increasingly obvious, even to morons, bigger and bigger lies and more and more censorship will have to be told to cover up the truth. That can’t go on forever. Sooner or later something in the chain of lies and deceit will break.

    92

  • #
    rowingboat

    The young rebels against the dogma must be rising.

    Just recently my son (Year 6) took great delight informing me that his teacher asked the all important question… what caused the NSW floods this year?

    A few of the kids shout out “climate change”.

    WRONG! replies the teacher, La Nina did… and then explains it to them.

    171

  • #
    Yonason

    I wrote above that COVID is the model. They got away with locking us down then, so now they are going to do the same to flatten the climate curve.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rUUWMK9FBko

    (He even gives a shout out to Jo and this blog!)

    21

    • #
      Yonason

      Update…

      Relevant post from JJCouey
      https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1678980869

      ….relevant to both COVID abuse and Climate Protection abuse.

      It’s not about protecting us from a disease or coercing us into modifying our behavior “to save the planet” from climate disaster. But neither of those are real problems. The real problem is submitting to their pathological supervision of us. The above video gives some insight into how they manipulate us. Hopefully the more we know of what they are up to, the more we’ll be able to effectively resist them.

      01

  • #
  • #
    Michael Clarke

    It is obvious there are just too many of us! So lets start a war or two!

    00