Martin2005

I'm sorry but I simply cannot even get close to believing that view

PS please inform where to find the 'stories after stories' you reffer to

You are dealing in opinion not fact matey, if someone's gots some genuine facts then I'd love to read them.

Martin2005

Why is it that I was totally unselective when I pasted in all of the findings from the poll YOU pointed to (supportive and less so) and you then selectively re-edit it in your response picking out the bits that you believe support your point of view?

There are lots of polls out there that are far less grey than this one, if this is the best you can up with then you've probably got to answer my original question.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

I'd have put that one down to deforestation

NotoriousREV

Everyone who thinks man has more influence on climate than the sun, raise your hands.

Klaatu

Ah now, this is a completely different stance. You, your supporters and the IPCC claim humans caused the change. Now we just contribute to it. Nice one.

If something is repeated enough, then those amoung us who are unable to differentiate fact from fiction believe it to be fact. Belief isn't science. Consensus, when you have a job to protect, isn't science. There was a prominet scientists in the 70's who supported the theory of global cooling, can you guess who he was?

Recall British politicians stating that "A new world order" is required to takle climate change? It's about power and control. Nothing more, nothing less.

We now have a nation of school children who can't sleep at night largely thanks to the IPCC climate change propaganda. Product packaging now has it's carbon footprint listed.

But you are right, the debate is over. Govn't's around the world, except for a few, have made their decision based on consensus, assumption and bad mathmatical computer models.

OllyK

You're making the claim not me, you find the polls that you feel support your argument and then I'll pass comment. If you can't be bothered to support your own argument I'm sure as heck not going to do it for you.

Holy Ghost

**

it can't hurt to take more consideration in what you do and i think it's long, long overdue that we collectively acted more responsibly in the way we use the planet and the environment.

are we to blame for climate change (despite the fact that climate is always changing)? i doubt this can be proven incontrovertibly and it is, after all, a wonderful political excuse to make money and exert control.

as i see it, what happens in the future hinges on the cracking of nuclear fusion and the widespread adoption of hydrogen as an automotive fuel. they constitute the energy Holy Grail.

however, as long as emerging powerhouse industrialised economies like china and india continue investing enormously in fossil fuel energy, anything we do here is just pi55ing in the wind.

technology will solve this issue, not gesture politics, hypocrisy and green fundamentalism. that we are not investing more in the fusion race is mystifying and indicates that perhaps a true solution is not really wanted - just our belief, our money and our various liberties.

HG

PS - funny how the climate summit had to take place in an island paradise and 15,000 people just had to fly there (business class naturally) to attend, many at the taxpayer's expense. could they not have staged a virtual summit using available technology without boarding a plane? i think they could have. but it's interesting to note they chose not to.

funny also that organisers have belatedly talked about offsetting the carbon cost of all the travel when these are the same people who slagged off Land Rover for their 45,000 mile carbon offset programme on all new 4x4s.

Martin2005

And in any of these stories is there any suggestion the politician are lining their own pockets?

2 of these stories reffer to the donor row, so the grand total of currupt and thieving politicians amount to 2 stories, neither of which has anything to do with personal corruption.

The problem is perception not reality, people dont go into politics to be crooks, and to think they do is just unfair, unfounded and wrong.

Martin2005

Look whatever I post up here is simply going to be selective to support my position and therefore meaningless, just google it yourself and make your own judgement

It drives me mad that people find one piece of evidence to support their position post it up and claim it's the definitive answer, I'm not going to do that.

OllyK

I did, I found absolutely nothing to support your point of view. See why asking me to do your homework doesn't work now?

Ahh, so you don't have anything to support your position at all then, glad we cleared that up.

OK snide remarks aside. You claim that "most of the UK agree that AGW is a reality and that SN as a whole don't". I asked you to substantiate that as the polls showed:

56%, that's a majority are not convinced the issue is resolved, and so doesn't support your position.

Now you may well be able to find a poll that shows the bulk of the UK public consider AGW to a done deal and a reality, if you can, post it up and then we can consider your question. At the moment your question is moot based on your assertion.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Can't argue with any of what you said HG; and I doubt if many of us cynics here would.

As for the Bali thing - it just stinks of hypocrisy doesn't it? Tue Climate Change Irony up there with the best.

PeteBrant

I can't beleive the store that you two are putting in polls.

Martin2005

You're just being selective!

The poll saying 56% of people are not convinced the issue is resolved, does not mean in anyway that the don't think it happening. I would put myself amongst that 56% as well by the way. My point here is that you will find very few in the general population that out-and-out reject that GW is man made, yet on here it appears to be the majority view.

BTW The very same poll claims that only 6% of the population think GW is due to natural casues alone, it also states that 90% of the population are concerned of the impact on future generations.

I'm off out in a minute, when I get back I'll post up every poll in detail that I can find good or bad.

jonc

This will rage on for years and years. Heres my take on GW:

A number of careful studies in of the ice cores in from the Antarctic and Greenland have shown there is an 800 year lag before there is an increase in CO2 during glacial termination caused by warming. Warmings take about 5000 years to complete. The following 4200 years of warming, CO2 *COULD* have caused further warming and therefore could be a factor in determining global temperature. However, what the ice core also showed was that when temperatures started to decrease and the end of the warming cycle, CO2 was still high and took a futher 1000 years before CO2 returned to previous levels. So for me, based on evidence of Earth's history from current scientific analysis, CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming

As we all know global warming is not a new phenomenon and in constant flux as is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with changes taking thousands of years. IPCC's report is based largely on the "hocky stick" study which as it turns out is inaccurate and somewhat exaggerated since it leaves out the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age".

Earth's climate is extremely complex and there are a huge number of factors that can influence it, for example, solar activity, volcanic activity, variations in ocean currents, El Ninos, variations in Earth's orbit, water vapour and even cosmic rays just to name a few. Climatologists cannot accurately project or predict climate and weather pattens 6 months or even a year ahead so how can we believe what they say now is concrete evidence for the next 50 or even 100 years time? Therefore such studies based on predictions and projections are inconclusive. It would be like trying to predict the winning lottery numbers in 10 years time, pick the the 6 numbers that have come up the most often on winning lines and therefore this must give us the best chance to "guarentee" a win. OK, granted it is somewhat a simplified example, but you get the gist. The Earth is warming, but IMO its inconceivable that CO2 alone, especially man made, is the sole contributor that *CAUSES* global warming.

The IPCC, a political body made up from a number of nations setup by politicians where some scientists have take legal action to have their names removed from the report, continue to make revisions to it's climate report that is filled witl lots of if's, probables and may be's are themselves not 100% certain that GW is man made and yet Governent and environmentalists want us to take this as gospel to a point where the Government want indoctrinate our children with this notion by introducing Al Gores An "Inaccurate" Truth into the curriculum.

There are many for's and against's in this arguement, even in the scientific community, but I am gradually seeing more convincing evidence against climate change that is solely caused by human activity, and in the opinion of how any form of human activity that could actually stop the climate from changing. This is not to say that we should squander Earth's resources, I'm all for conservation within reason. Although I'm of the view that offsetting carbon by planting trees so that people can drive in uneconomical cars and fly on privated and charted jets (yes Al Gore, that's you!) is a con, since its takes the trees many years to absorb that amount of CO2 and will just release it again when the tree(s) die. What I do take expection to is the hypocracy of the powers be who are/will be forcing their ill concieved policies on us now and in the future based on an inconclusive report that has many unanswered questions.

OllyK

Where does it say that the people of the poll were asked if that's what they believe or not? You acuse me of being selective and yet you make assumptions that aren't supported by the poll.

75% believe GW is natural seems the majority view and that of SN are not so out of synch. I think you may be right that the majority believe that GW is occuring, I'm not so convinced that your view of the majority thinking it's anthropogenic is actually correct.

And the poll above has it at 75%. You can also be concerned about GW without thinking it is man made. This is in part the problem with polls, much depends on the question asked and even how it is asked. I think you'll find it very hard to make a definitive case that the SN viewpoint is significantly different from the man on the street. The main issue being that your average man on the street won't have given it much thought.

That's fine and a useful excersise, you may well find that there is little consistency between them and so it's then very hard to be so confident about your assertion.

OllyK

Oh I hold very little store in them, I'm just trying to make a point to Martin that his assertion that SN's view point is radically different from the general public is one that he'll find very difficult to back up. For any poll he can find to support his position there will be another that contradicts it. As a result he is asking for a question to be answered that is based on a false premise.

Holy Ghost

**

yup, sure does and sure is. would you like noodles or rice with your bawang goreng mr benn? charge it to your room account? of course. and would sir like a massage before the limousine arrives to take you to the airport?

honestly. [huffs and snorts].

i loathe being cynical but it appears there's no acceptable alternative. and where's the media when you need them to ask blindingly obvious, awkward questions? nowhere. as usual. the spoon-fed cretins.

PeteBrant

FWIW I think that you probably have the right of it. As a whole, the nation is more skeptical than not. But obviously this is based purely on anecdotal evidence.

To be honest the whole PR campaign of the pro camp has been very, very negative. It has been all about what happens if we don't do X. Rather "hey, look at the benefits of doing Y"

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

So, maybe this is the crux question:

If Climate Change, and more specifically, man-created or induced climate change is the massive threat to humanity that the IPCC claim that it is; then why do they insist on having their summit somewhere that you can only fly to? Why not hold it somewhere that there is already a large concentration of senior international political figures - such as New York? Why not conduct the summit over VTC?

Why not?


IMO: Because its do as we say, not as we do.

I don't deny that human industry has had an effect on the ecology and other species of this planet; and from what I've seen, not many of us are denying that. But its hard to swallow all the "facts/propaganda" when we see the "enviromentalists" taking flights to Bali; or to some random african country to purcha.. sorry.. "adopt" a child - only then to lecture ME on how I shouldn't drive to the shops. What we seem to be arguing about is the LEVEL that humans have had an effect on naturally occurring climate change. I don't think its that much; but that doesn't mean I'm some evil planet killer - I make a conscious effort to recycle as much as I can, buy locally produced food, and be as otherwise environmentally friendly as I can be.

What I object to is this utter hysteria from hypocrites flying in their big arsed private jet about leaving my TV on standby.

This makes a mockery of the whole issue of how we, as humanity, will have to deal with the inevitable issue of global climate change.

OllyK

Indeed, I probably went a long way round to make a small point, but it's all too easy to assert things with little or no evidence to back it up. Certainly in this case there is a lot of evidence around and it's far from easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, the fact from the fiction.

One side has certainly been sucessful in generating sufficient mis-information to ensure the general public don't know exactly what's going on. Which side that is I couldn't say for sure. I suspect, as is so often the case, reality sits somewhere in the middle.

Jamie

What I object to is this utter hysteria from hypocrites flying in their big arsed private jet or leave my TV on standby

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I've now edited that in my previous post so it comes close to resembling English.

Martin2005

So do you think that th majority of the country reject MMGW and have closed their minds to the issue, the way that people on this forum appear to have.

There's such a massive difference between sceptism and rejection, I accept that most people in the UK are somewhere in the middle on this issue, it blindingly obvious that miost on here are not.

I sort those polls out soon

Holy Ghost

**

amen to that.

OllyK

Nope, I think you'll struggle to find out definitively what the British public think and so can't make the comparison.

Choose the poll that you think best indicates that the bulk of the UK think that we are experiencing AGW as opposed to just GW of natural origin, then post the same poll question here for comparsion.

Martin2005

OK I haven't looked at most of them, but I would be absolutely stunned if you can find any polls the concludes the vast majority reject MMGW

World Public Opinion=
World Public Opinion=
World Public Opinion=
Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem - TIME
Exclusive global warming poll: The buck stops here - earth - 20 June 2007 - New Scientist Environment
Exclusive global warming poll: The buck stops here - earth - 20 June 2007 - New Scientist Environment
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Most ready for 'green sacrifices'
Most Britons willing to pay green taxes to save the environment | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/u...4appendix1.pdf
Mayor of London - Consultation: Opinion polls - 2006
Docuticker » AEI Public Opinion Study: Polls on the Environment and Global Warming
UK Indymedia - new mori opinion poll on climate change published today
Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy: Opinion Polls versus Actual Votes
Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy: Opinion Polls versus Actual Votes
New Opinion Poll finds Liberal Democrats are the party for the many and not the few (Greenwich Borough Liberal Democrats)
IngentaConnect Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic chang...
IngentaConnect Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic chang...

PeteBrant

See this is exactly what is wrong with using polls as any form of evidence

BBC NEWS | World | Most ready for 'green sacrifices'

21,000 across 22 countries equates to "most people"?

This sort of statement drives me absolutely bonkers. How in the name of blue **** does 21,000 across 22 countries come anywhere near presenting an accurate portrayal of opinion across nealy 7,000,000,000 people in 176 countries?


Answer? It doesn't. Yet the headline states "Most people...." Fvcking w4nkers.

OllyK

I did post one earlier that said 75% thought GW was natural as opposed to Anthropogenic.

Doesn't specifically ask the question of comparing GW with AGW, it's to do with action in terms of increasing taxes and energy bills. However - the closest is "Will individuals have to change their lifestyle to reduce the amount of climate changing gas", UK = 53% definate

This is about whether we should take action, regadless of whether we have established if there is a problem or not. No figures quoted for the UK.

Again to do with action to be taken, no UK figures.

US poll, no UK figures

US poll, no UK figures

Same poll as the one above

BBC report on the earlier poll about lifestyle changes

Guardian take on the same poll

Haven't got adobe, so no comment

Confirmed fears about global warming, but not about whether it is AGW or natural.

I could go on, but I'm getting short on time. Also there is this:
Three Quarters Believe Global Warming A 'Natural Occurrence' - UK News Headlines

Yup, people think GW is genuine, but 75% think it's natural.


So you see it's not so easy to find a nice clean example of a poll along the lines of:

1) Do yo think GW is occuring
2) If yes, do you think it's natural or anthropogenic.

Question 1 gets a high positive response from the polls I have seen, and I think in general the same applies on here, not too many saying it isn't getting warmer at all, but giving plenty of reasons other than anthropgenic ones for what it may be occuring.

Question 2 seems to 75% think it's natural from the poll above and on here, I'd say it may be a little higher, but it's hard to say, maybe we need a poll

Martin2005

This is an extract from one of the polls you mentioned, the pollster also says the 'very few people reject'

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Scepticism' over climate claims

It's also interesting to read some of the US polls, now you could hardly say that the US Administration has been peddling the MMGW issue, and yet it would appear that American people are more likely to at least believe that it's happening than not...interesting

I still maintain this is about moderation versus extremism, scepticism versus rejectionist, those with open minds and those who simply close their minds because they may not like the implications of at least listening to the debate - and this cuts both ways

I simply cannot understand how anyone on here can reject this issue, I implore people not to just reject, but to listen and keep an open mind