H17753
Headlines : EnvironmentPoll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
Poll figures commissioned by the Observer newspaper have found that of those questioned, over half still believe that “many” scientists question anthropogenic warming while around half believe that the effects of climate change have been exaggerated. Most also reject “green taxes” and are extremely distrustful of government attempts to mitigate the problem of climate change.
These figures, while worrying, reflect public opposition to unfair “green” taxes that will hit their pockets at a time of economic insecurity. Corporate profits and the personal wealth of the very rich will not be redistributed to remedy an environmental crisis caused largely by the way that both have been accumulated.
It is not surprising that people distrust a government mired in sleaze, incompetence and Iraqi blood – but the scale of misunderstanding about the scientific community is much more concerning. A little bit of corporate-funded skepticism goes a long way. We certainly have a battle on our hands to persuade the people that they must be engaged in the fight against climate change.
[Posted By Szamko]Republished from The Observer
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.
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.
Posted by Szamko
Just tries to tell the truth.
we’re fucked
we’re fucked
yeah yeah. but at least we knwo we’re fucked.
stellar summary sam. and love you guys’ accent. seriously. especially on the ladies. killer hot.
just met a red coat (heh oh not politically correct… umm.. a britisher.. yeah) at the beach in montezuma. he quit his jerb to move to the tropics and do diving and marine conservation. we had a good ol chat about the death of the ocean and the end of industrial civilization. and after only a couple beers the mad fellow was ready to help me load a dead sea turtle into my stolen rental car so we could make some kind of environmental type statement or something. the thing was way too heavy, bloated and rotting though (the turtle that is). but yeah, i forgive you rat bastards and i apologize for the whole chucking the tea in the water thingy. lets kick it sometime and have a beer for fucks sake. you’re going to have to do something about that fucking beard if you want to get through the airports, though.
these uniformed jerk offs take themselves a bit too seriously now day.
keep up the great work man. cheers!
Word on the summary, never would have read it, so thanks for the heads up in that post liv.
I do not understand why it is important whether or not people believe in climate change. The same activities which do or do not contribute to climate change are most certainly poisoning the air and water, and rendering more and more of the soil inarable. Are these not good enough reasons to simply forgo the debate and take action? If we get to caught up in the media spectacle, we may very well go on debating each other quite literally to death.
good point lovenpeace. but it should be pretty obvious by now that the denial camp would not and has not taken any action to get involved beyond defending their crumbling egos and whittling their time away in front of computer monitors.
if im wrong about this gang, please lemme know.
gwhunta, for example, if you really believed in the validity of your made up theory on water vapor influencing warming would you ever get out and try to apply your ideas to fix these problems? why not?
this is a global issue which requires a united, global and rapid response.
those of us who actually value nature, wilderness and a safe planet for ourselves and future generations tend to have the distinctions of making actually real world accomplishments on our sides of the “debate.” it is not important whether the ineffectual paranoiacs do or do not believe in climate change. they get nothing done. it is important, though, to keep raising awareness and creating action based on emerging science.
It displays UK’s deliberate media blind spots.
Nice to see that people see through the smoke and look away from the mirror. I am in no way doubting the waste land that humans leave in our wake. But this whole Co2=global warming thing is getting old. Anyone who OBJECTIVELY looks at the theory of greenhouse gas caused warming would see that Co2 should be of very little concern because it has a VERY SMALL ability to cause such climate change.
The sun has the BIGGEST effect on global temperatures but is ignored as if it doesn’t rise every morning and heat the place up. The you have that “made up” water vapor theory. I think (know), as would anyone else that looked in the matter, that water vapor has the ability to hold more radiation than all other gases in the atmosphere combined. Think of a desert night…... cold as hell…. why no water vapor to hold that heat the sun gave off. Now spend that same night in the humid south and you will find that hours after the sun has set the temperature is the same….. 90+% humidity (water vapor) holds dems heat.
Now some will say that the earth has a natural ability to hold and depose of this water vapor so it can’t build to a “tipping point”. Well that is very true but that statement could also be said about Co2. The real problem is that we are damaging the earths natural equilibrium. Deforestation, Diverting of water (Dams, Agriculture), and massive amount of paved and blacktop surfaces all have a large effect on both warming and earth’s natural ability to absorb greenhouse gases.
It seems to me that all of talk of a global rapid response will lead to the end consumer paying to clean up the muti-national corporations mess in form of “green taxes”. I prefer that people LEARN what in their own lives contribute to climate change and find new ways of living. If we allow laws and regulations to “protect” the earth we will find that we carry the largest burden of the taxes while the biggest polluters get a loop hole to pay none. Those same laws and regulations allowed us to get to this point. Do you really think they will work the next time around?
I see a lot of people starving in the future. Starving while profits rise, and CEO incomes break records and all under the flag of global protection.
jonbray, Thanks for playing the part of Rhys1 Public who doesn’t understand global warming. It’s a delightful illustration of the kind of ignorant idiocy England and the rest of the world are dealing with when trying to work for positive change.
1 Couldn’t really find a common distinctly British name, fuck…
The people are waking up! Bank-fed propaganda can’t survive the harsh light of reason!
“The people are waking up! Bank-fed propaganda can’t survive the harsh light of reason1!”
1 For all intents and purposes “reason” in bacchus’s posts will henceforth be known as ExxonMobil
Using RC Wiki denier debunking index:
The sun has the BIGGEST effect on global temperatures but is ignored …
Answer: there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
... water vapor has the ability to hold more radiation than all other gases in the atmosphere combined.
Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. ... H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.
I like this RC Wiki. Please vote for it in the yard.
From what I have observed, most Britons doubt the cause of dental hygiene as well. So no big deal…
Hungeski- I see you too can pick a few facts out to prove a point (you even have links). Problem is even in your links there seems to be no real consistency. There in LIES the problem. There are hundred of different variables that could cause climate change. And “according to scientific literature and climate experts” they can’t seem to make up their mind which one to blame.
9% to 30% sounds like rock hard science to shape the future off of. I like the GWP of 1 given to Co2 because the “experts” have no real idea what happens to it after it atmosphere.
“No increase in solar irradiance since 1940” but “Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere” and “The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun — versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth’s surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution — is by taking readings from space.” drum roll ….....................“there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began.” So they can completely contradict themselves in the same paragraph and it is still site worthy?
I would like to see some OBJECTIVE argument from someone about Co2 being the cause of global warming or cooling.
I AM NOT saying humans can live the same way we have for the last 70 years. We must become more efficient in everything we do or a lot of people have to die so a few can continue on the same path.
Science- the felling is mutual.
I would like to see some OBJECTIVE argument from someone about Co2 being the cause of global warming or cooling.
Objective? People love that word for some reason.
Also, they didn’t contradict themselves, they qualified a statement with situational exceptions. I find it interesting that you hold it against them for being honest.
Humans exacerbate climate change, humans don’t cause climate change. But, that won’t stop them from trying. (See 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea)
Why should people need to feel they are the cause of Global Warming?
There’s the rub. If it doesn’t affect them, why should they feel compelled — to do anything?
I feel your pain.
Global Warming is irrelevant.
All change is local— Do US a favor—
Get that New York polluting factory in Ohio — SHUTDOWN!
STOP DEMANDING CHEAP FOSSIL FUELS!
A fantasy.
The greatest advocates, the callers for action — Democrats and their supporters — are calling for cheaper oil. This is the same group that supports extreme taxes on tobacco products.
. . . though many, here at GNN, have and are doing their part.
I’m not sure what that means, but . . .
[sidebar]Spend a summer in Naples, FL. Or, visit immigrant-tomato-pickers in nearby Immokolee. Then witness the daily, awesome, godly beauty of climate change in action. No. Not INaction. ACTION!
In the Everglades— you could almost feel the water change the climate.
Life along the Tamiami Trail
Hungeski- I see you too can pick a few facts out
My facts all come from RC Wiki and are approved by reputable climate scientists.
There are hundred of different variables that could cause climate change. And “according to scientific literature and climate experts” they can’t seem to make up their mind which one to blame.
Answer: The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports. From IPCC 2007: Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. ... very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W per square meter.
I would like to see some OBJECTIVE argument from someone about Co2 being the cause of global warming or cooling.
Answer RealClimate – The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps:
1. There is a natural greenhouse effect.
2. Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
3. The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
4. Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated: ... The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2
5. Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
6. Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number: ... additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.
Humans exacerbate climate change, humans don’t cause climate change.
Answer: Again, IPCC 2007: … very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W per square meter. (‘forcing’ means ‘causing’)
this is a global issue which requires a united, global and rapid response. — A fantasy.
Answer We may find that once the process has begun, the world loses its addiction to carbon fuels surprisingly quickly. Natural scientists fear “tipping points” in the climate system. But there are also tipping points in social, economic and political systems. Once under way, things can happen fast.
Please vote-up the RC Wiki link.
If that’s what they’re teaching in the scientific community, it’s no wonder there is a disconnect from the lay person.
If you tell a parent their child is at risk of harmful pollutants from the school bus and talk about simple things — “Don’t breath in the smelly smoke, Jimmy!” — they are probably — with very high confidence — more likely, to support your pollution cutting, CO2 reducing, liberal alternative transition.
Global Warming is irrelevant.
Humans, like water, will follow the path of least resistance.
It seems to me that all of talk of a global rapid response will lead to the end consumer paying to clean up the muti-national corporations mess in form of “green taxes”. I prefer that people LEARN what in their own lives contribute to climate change and find new ways of living.
oh, thats because you are an idiot. if the multinational corps wanted to get green taxes passed why haven’t they yet, you fucking dolt?
look retards: Vote on climate bill is blocked in Senate
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world’s biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.
coastal areas across the world are being effected by salt water contamination, storms, fires, and extreme weather on on the rise just as scientists have predicted and you fucking losers are complaining about a possible tax? one that has been rejected by the very powers which you claim want to tax us? you fucking amerikkkans make me laugh.
_this is a global issue which requires a united, global and rapid response. — A fantasy.
Answer We may find that once the process has begun, the world loses its addiction to carbon fuels surprisingly quickly. Natural scientists fear “tipping points” in the climate system. But there are also tipping points in social, economic and political systems. Once under way, things can happen fast._
it has begun. 350.org, por exemplo.
these people live in front of their computers and or with their heads in thier asses. dont expect them to be paying attention to more that thier limited views from within their lower intestines.