We’re a nation of climate change sceptics
I’m so glad to find the proof that Britain is a nation of climate change sceptics. Despite the green pressure groups, media, and political capitulation to the idea that man-made climate change is happening, the vox populi are saying “bugger off and let us get on with our lives”.
The environment is not the big issue that they all seem to think it is. People simply don’t believe the claptrap that is spouted about it:
- 50% think that the media are too alarmist about climate change
- 40% believe the many experts are still question the evidence on made-made climate change
- 20% are “hard-line sceptics” – presumable the sort of people green fanatics refer to a “climate change deniers” (though they’d probably include the other 40% as well)
It is precisely becase of this view shared by most people that demonstrates that the enviro-fascists who scream about stopping plan flights and the like are way off. People are willing to recycle, turn the TV off rather than put it on stand-by, purchse electricty from “renewable sources”, and other little things tht really don’t cause them much bother – but we won’t put our lives on hold. We won’t stop using our cars, we won’t pay loads more for food that has been organicaly grown or whatever.
My own opinion can be summed up as follows: I don’t care about climate change. Because we should all be doing the little things that we can that don’t disrupt our lives. The science isn’t solid enough yet. They don’t know what is causing climate change – why did they change its name from global warming anyway? Oh, because people noticed it wasn’t getting warmer – and how much (or even whether) this is really caused by man-made emissions.
As a nation of sceptics, we shouldn’t alow ourselves to be pushed into doing things that we don’t believe are necessary. There should be no ban on old-style lightbulbs, we shouldn’t blight our country with wind turbines, and we shouldn’t be told to stop living our lives.
Absolutely. I just a few minutes ago did a big-ish comment on another site that I’ll include most of here, even tho it seems sort of cheating ^_^. It fits perfectly.
The whole climate thing does seem to have polarised and be attracting ‘adherents’ ‘converts’. Talk of ‘deniers’ and such. Will it be infidel next? Very strong, almost unhinged opinions on both sides.
And you know what? I don’t trust people like that to tell me the truth. I don’t trust them not to make stuff up to support what they believe. I don’t trust them not to make stupid mistakes because they look for evidence to support what they believe and ignore stuff that does not.
Only a complete idiot or a creationist would try to claim there is no such thing as climate change. Generally globally and also sometimes just locally. Even Creationists believe in floods.
It was not impossibly long ago (since the height of the last ice age) that what is now the north sea was forest. There was probably a land bridge between Asia and Alaska. Sea levels rose all that land was submerged under the sea. Did people cause that? How?
What about the series of ice ages? What about when the ice retreated. When there were hardly any people about?
There is the gulf stream, El Nino, sun spots, dust from volcanoes, maybe even Mammoth’s and bison’s digestive problems ^_^
We know it happens naturally anyway.
I am not dumb. I hear/read lots of talk that even I can see does not add up from both sides.
Also to me while some of the ‘deniers’ might seem a bit nutty to me many more of the ‘believers’ look like the sort of people who believe they know better than everyone else and want to be in charge to make everyone else do what they think we ought to be doing, for our own good, for the cause, for our salvation.
I don’t think any of them really know.
They say there are more sceptics among the rural more than urban population. Well I guess people who live in the country are maybe more likely to be in tune with the actual seasons and weather.
They also say Older people are more likely to be sceptical. I guess Older people have seen more summers and winters and weather in general. They have an actual base of experience to compare claims against. Maybe they remember the fierce winters of the 80s. The really warm summers of the 70s. Maybe even the winter of 63 or the summers of the 40s.
As for me I am sitting on the fence, yet to be convinced, a floating voter. I figure it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I guess am a bit… well… sceptical.
Does that make me a sceptic? A heretic an infidel?
50% think that the media are too alarmist about climate change.
And then some.
Great article, Chris.
What I have learned from other ‘well-meaning’ campaigns is that the more weak the evidence, the more you will read “the debate is over”, or “the evidence is overwhelming” in every press release. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be the need for such hysterical hyperbole.
What’s that proverb about empty vessels again?
I’m glad we’re a nation of sceptics too.
I was listening to Tim Harford’s More or Less on Radio 4 this evening. Part of it was about climate change, featuring a couple of scientists who had each written computer simulation models. Both were fully signed up to global warming. One of them, from the Met Office, said there was always natural variability, and you could see 10 years of cooling interrupting the rising temperature trend. “Like the past 10 years?” asked Harford. “Yes,” the Met Office boffin said, “There’s been a slight cooling over the past 10 years,” before going on to point out that there had been 10 years of warming before that. “Couldn’t that have been due to natural variability too?” asked Harford.
I couldn’t help but think that Harford was making quite a good sceptical case. Is the BBC getting sceptical about global warming?
Comments