Monday, 23 June 2008

Climate common sense still prevails among the British

How does it come about that most Britons don't believe that humans are the cause of climate change given the propaganda bombardment from those who stand to gain the most from the imposition of a carbon tax on Western societies?

From one of the world's most left wing major papers, The Guardian, comes this article describing the results of a recent survey:
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
To those of us who know what a scam global warming catastrophism is it comes as no shock at all that 'campaigners' (aka left wing political activists) were shocked that the years of hard work indoctrinating the public with their loopy ideas has had little effect.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
It is completely impossible for any Western country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent in 12 years. Impossible.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.

'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
As oil prices rise that potential is becoming reality and represents a huge problem for governments who are trying to take their countries back to the 1920s.
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
It's amazing, isn't it, that the left's massive propaganda campaign could be defeated by a one hour video, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and one book that questions the consensus.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'

In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
The population of Europe is in the process of having an unwanted European Constitution shoved down their throats by an undemocratic, unrepresentative European Union. They are highly sensitised to the ability of multinational organisations to make things worse for them. Thus, they view what the IPCC, a UN body, promotes with justifiable suspicion.
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.

Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
That's right. You must have gone to university and been immersed in the left wing claptrap that pervades campuses and curricula to be fooled by the climate change argument. The reason is that people who have been to university are more likely to believe authority figures and experts than those who are less educated. Therefore the '2,500 scientists agree' argument carries weight.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.

More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
See? Two thirds of people still have common sense. That must drive the left nuts.

(Nothing Follows)

8 comments:

MichaelW said...

Hi I'm looking to build up my incoming links for my blog.
Would you like to exchange blogroll links with me?
If yes, please visit: http://bigmoneylist.blogspot.com/
and leave your URL for your blog there. I'll link to you within hours. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Your hatred of people who are actually educated and your idolisation of the wilfully stupid are extremely evident.

A third of British people think that Mount Everest is in Europe, and a half do not know that the Nile is the longest river in the world. Ignorant parents rushed to risk their children's health after the baseless MMR claims. Most British people believe that crime is at an all time high when in fact it's been falling for more than a decade. British people are generally pretty ignorant. If you trumpet their ignorance, you only confirm your own desperate stupidity.

It is completely impossible for any Western country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent in 12 years. Impossible, you say, offering no evidence. Obviously you were completely unaware that Denmark, for example, reduced its per capita CO2 emissions by almost 30 per cent in just the five years between 1996 and 2000.

Being ignorant is a disgrace. Being as proud of your ignorance as you are is despicable.

Jack Lacton said...

Gee, Fudgie, it looks like you haven't taken your Prozac today, as you're a bit fired up!

Crime rates in London are massively increased even in spite of changes to the way crimes are reported that should have an effect of lowering numbers.

If one-third of British people think that Everest is in Europe then that speaks ill of your education system, doesn't it?

It's OK for them, though. 'Educated' people know best and are there to save the day for those ignorant, unwashed masses who aren't able to think clearly for themselves.

Per capita emissions are a meaningless number, as you well know, and it would only matter in the case that CO2 is causing the majority of the warming that we've seen in the last 100 years (even accepting that recent cooling could be anomalous), which it's clearly not.

I leave you to wallow in your pitiful ignorance of how the real world works.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that you can provide a link to the data showing that crime in London is "massively increased", that somehow contradicts this or this, and that you're not just a lying little shit making things up to fit in with your infantile preconceptions.

Obviously the poor geographical knowledge I mentioned speaks ill of our education system. That's the point. Perhaps you missed it because of the huge inadequacies in your own education system.

So you think Denmark's population was changing rapidly between 1996 and 2000, do you? And it is quite irrelevant whether CO2 even has an effect on global temperatures (which it does, of course). You claimed that no western country could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 12 years. I showed you one that reduced them by 30% in four years. You've embarrassed yourself yet again by not even bothering to check the simplest of claims. You're an idiot. A complete, utter, boneheaded idiot.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

When you answer the question of how Tuvalu is proof of global warming - which you have studiously ignored - then you can snipe about anti-intellectualism.

Put up or shut up.

And, pray tell, how did Denmark achieve those reductions per capita (which is meaningless)? Let's see how honest you are in your answer.

Anonymous said...

OK, fucky, so you admit that you're a lying little shit and you just made up your claims about London crime rates. Good.

Who ever said that Tuvalu was 'proof of global warming'?

How Denmark achieved the reduction is irrelevant, All that is relevant is that you said such a reduction is impossible, and you've been shown again to be a lying little shit.

Do explain why 'per capita' is meaningless though. If you can.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

You are getting more hysterical as your arguments are, one by one, being discredited as quackery.

Who used Tuvalu as proof of AGW?

YOU DID, YOU CLOWN!

Furthermore, if you would like to look up how Denmark gets its energy you'll see a situation that is impossible for all countries in Europe to achieve, as you would end up with the Excel equivalent of a circular reference. That should give you enough of a clue to go looking...

Anonymous said...

You must have suffered yet another catastrophic misunderstanding. I have never said that anything about Tuvalu was 'proof' of global warming. Do you understand the difference between a tiny island in the Pacific, and the entire world? Evidence that demonstrates the reality of global warming can never come from one single place. This is quite a simple concept. Why haven't you got it yet?

Keep on trying to dig yourself out of the Denmark hole. You're fooling no-one but yourself. Did you say that no country except Denmark could achieve dramatic reductions in emissions? No, you said no western country. You've been proved wrong, again. Admit it and move on.