68% agree humanity is causing climate change, while skeptics “represent a fringe position”
The public’s belief in global warming as a man-made danger has weathered the storm of climate controversies and cold weather intact, according to a Guardian/ICM opinion poll published today.
Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. Compared with August 2009, when the same question was asked, opinion remained steady despite a series of events in the intervening 18 months that might have made people less certain about the perils of climate change
So the emails — which originated in Britain — had no noticeable impact, nor did a couple of “trivial mistakes” in the IPCC. This suggests the British public understands that, after multiple vindications, the notion that a few cherry-picked quotes from e-mails undermined the overwhelming scientific understanding of climate science was just B.S.*
These findings are consistent with recent U.S. polling by Stanford (see “The vast majority of Americans know global warming is real,” discussed below).
But perhaps the most remarkable finding by the Guardian is the impact of the cold winter on British views of climate change:
The UK also suffered two unusually cold winters in 2009 and 2010. But three times more people said the freezing weather had actually made them worry more about global warming than those who were less worried. The finding runs counter to the idea that people are influenced more by local conditions than by reports of globally rising temperatures. It may also indicate an understanding of how warming is projected to increase extreme weather events and that people distinguish between changes in short-term weather and long-term climate.
Looks like the British public may be following the science closer these days and beginning to discern the role global warming is playing in extreme winter weather.
This is doubly impressive given the general decline in the quality of British coverage of climate science and the prominence of climate science deniers in British newspapers (see “And the 2010 Citizen Kane award for non-excellence in climate journalism goes to “¦” and Must-see Delingpole meltdown on BBC: “It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time”¦. I am an interpreter of interpretations”).
A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively. In 2007, the UN’s science panel collated the work of thousands of scientists to conclude that the link between the emission of greenhouse gases by human activities and climate change was 90% certain.
While climate sceptics remain a vocal presence in some parts of the climate change debate, the new poll shows them to represent a fringe position. An analysis of those who think climate change poses no threat reveals them to be predominantly men (70%) and about twice as likely to be over 65 and to have voted Conservative in 2010 than the general population.
Yes, UK skeptics are predominately old conservative guys — I know that comes as a big shock to you all.
No doubt part of the reason that denial does not appear to have taken hold in Britain is that leading conservative UK politicians have remained consistent in their public statements about the strength of climate science and the need to take action (see “U.S. conservatives vs. U.K. conservatives“).
These findings also suggest it’s a myth that climate science is a subject that leading politicians shouldn’t talk about. Indeed, a poll last summer by Stanford concluded, “Democrats and Independents are likely to back candidates who propose action on global warming.” They surveyed voters in three states and found large majorities of Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts residents believe that global warming is real””and that humans are causing it [click to enlarge]:
Public sentiment is no excuse for not talking about global warming or for not taking immediate action on reducing emissions.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Somewhat surprising results, but very good news.
problem is they are not acting on this….
Global emissions still have not fallen though even during a western recession.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/pollution-carbon-emissions
They benefit greatly from a dedicated weather/climate service – unlike anything in the US. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change
They are well funded and provide a great service. We could do well to emulate them http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ Just look at the tabs of their services. Impressive.
It’s easy to talk the talk, but are they ready to walk the walk?
This might be a bit of a game changer; investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/alberta-tar-sands-trade-agreement
While the facts presented here seems to be “accurate” the presentation most certainly is not.
From the Guardian:
So, in the UK at any rate, the CRU emails and the bad winter have most certinaly had an impact on public opinion.
Ignoring the obvious doesnt make it go away.
[JR: Uhh, that was a year ago -- by the same newspaper. The point is since then, vindications and scientific reality have had their say.]
Here’s an interesting poll that illustrates a big part of the problem:
http://media.economist.com/images/20090704/CUS717.gif
JayZ — “So, in the UK at any rate, the CRU emails and the bad winter have most certinaly had an impact on public opinion.”
Sorry, if that were the case then I’d hazard a guess that you’d certainly see a rise in scepticism. People are bored of it all, which is not breaking news. Give it until when there’s no Arctic sea ice in summer; then we’ll see how the sceptical percentage holds up.
Just a suggestion, but if anyone posting this poll story is rebutted with one saying scepticism has risen in the UK, check the date of their source ;)
Every now and again my fellow countrymen do something to make me proud. Not loudly, or violently, or stridently, but just by the exercise of sound common sense, active listening and solid judgement.
My own guess is that the ‘holding steady’ in the face of denier propaganda results not so much from scientific literacy as a general unease about ‘climate change’. From talking to ‘just folks’ (like my bank teller) I get the impression that hearing stories about extreme weather (especially floods and big storms)gives a lot of people a rather uneasy feeling that there must be something to this ‘climate change’ business. I don’t see that as grounded in real solid knowledge and so I don’t see it as opinion that’s impervious to propaganda. But perhaps it is an opening for expanding the knowledge of the general public. That’s the challenge.
@ Paulm and Robert In New Orleans
“It’s easy to talk the talk, but are they ready to walk the walk?”
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx
“Key provisions of the Act
* A legally binding target of at least an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, to be achieved through action in the UK and abroad. Also a reduction in emissions of at least 34 percent by 2020. Both these targets are against a 1990 baseline.”
It may surprise you, but it’s the law over here. [Disclaimer: I am not qualified to say whether the plans are likely to work or not and who knows what the future may bring].
A little surprising, given that the coverage of the CRU hack in the U.K. was even worse than the U.S. coverage in my view, and I figured that winter weather would likely play a greater role. Kudos to the Brits for being rational on the issue.
Deniers absolutely hate these types of poll results. Since their propaganda is directed specifically at the public, they see this as a failure, unless of course they are in denial about the results.
Englishmen still read, and too many of us get our information from people
like Rush and Beck. The oil companies know that if they persuade 40% of the US public to believe their bullshit, their “campaign contributions” to Congressmen will do the rest.
It’s time to think about prosecuting the oil and coal companies for public endangerment. Since people have been killed from their negligence even without considering carbon, criminal penalties are called for. As with state GHG reductions, regional DA’s may have to be the ones to take us forward.
My reactions to the Stanford data are:
1) Amazement that all three states are so similar (and in my opinion so favourable to sound policy)
2) Why has this survey not been replicated for all states in the US to get a snapshot of the true national profile of opinion? When if ever will Stanford replicate this survey but for the entire US?
3) Certainly replicating this survey on a fully national basis should be a very high priority. Without having data for all states, the Sanford study can be dismissed as “cherry picking” for states that are sensitized to global warming issues etc.
A short period of colder weather may even act as a reminder of the long-term trend, because many news and and weather reports will naturally compare back to the last period with similar winter temperatures, say in the 1960s, and this ties well with the personal experience of the 65+ demographic.
The question on how the cold snaps have affected people’s view of climate change is oddly worded; it asks “Thinking about people you know, do you think that the very cold weather in December made them worry less about the dangers of global warming, worry more, or would it have made no difference to them one way or another?”
I’m not sure if this focus on judging other people’s opinions rather than stating the respondent’s own makes the results more or less significant – or maybe no difference. What I can state with certainty is that this will be twisted by the usual suspects so as to justify dismissing the results out of hand.
The poll results in the U.S. at least don’t seem very consistent with real action, political or otherwise. Just look at the latest crop of politicians. I wonder how much of that is people believing some change is occurring, but not viewing it as a potential threat, or distinct from past climate fluctuations experienced by civilization. There has been some doubt-seeding along those lines. Then there’s the question of how many people see it as something we have decades to deal with (i.e. lack an understanding of the risks associated with Earth’s thermal inertia and lagged feedback response).
I think deniers have a hard time accepting these percentages because of the various groups/blogs they hang out with. They see their cult growing in numbers, as the blog leaders remind them frequently, and a forever barrage of “growing numbers of…skeptical” narratives. But new members of their cult tend to be predisposed towards science denial, and their cult, however large, makes up a fairly small percentage of the overall population. While public opinion might be holding up among the general population, global warming deniers have perhaps have strengthened their personal convictions.
Sam #15
Be sure to check out the link to the earlier national survey done by the Stanford team. They conducted the national survey between June 1-7 of 2010 and the latest survey is an enhanced follow up study using just 3 states. Check the link and you will find details as to how the survey was conducted, demographics in depth and results showing 75% of responders said that human behavior was substantially responsible for the warming that has occurred.
Jon Krosnick conducted a previous poll in 2006 that showed 84% were in agreement with human caused warming as opposed to the figure today.
Someone was on this site a few months saying that “Another cold winter in the UK and any hope for action on climate change will be gone for a generation!”
Well, it happened, but it looks like climate change as a set of accepted beliefs are persisting, in spite of the media hype.
What the media “hype” left out was that (well, in Ireland at least) we had a long dry Autumn, the best for a generation. Farmers were planting winter crops right into November, when traditionally we are deluged with rain (soft Irish rain, not your monsoons, thank you!).
Despite the chill December, we are now seeing the signs of an early Spring. I think people can instinctively feel a change in the seasons and the weather. And as John Cook says “Weather throws the punches, climate trains the boxer.”
While it is reassuring to see that mass imbecility has not spread as far and as deep as one might have feared, it is actually irrelevant. The opinions of the public are of no consequence in market capitalist societies if they clash with those of those societies’ real rulers, the rich. One need only look at the experience of the Blair, Obama and Rudd regimes, which all gave the false impression that they stood for ‘change’ from a discredited predecessor regime and its ideology, then governed in every way the same as those supposedly repudiated regimes. The establishment, the media no less than any other stratum, is dedicated to business as usual. One need only visit the MSM blogs to see how the ‘Comments’ are biased towards crude, imbecilic and increasingly vicious denialism. Commentators who consistently, doggedly, refute denialist lies, suddenly ‘disappear’, or pop up occasionally, often complaining of being censored. Rabid denialists appear over and over, with barely a pause between expectorations, their massive, Dunning-Krugerite egos inflating before our very eyes. Bit by bit these blogs become dominated by idiocy and lies.
We must never forget that until the market capitalist system goes, there will be no progress, because ecological destruction is far more profitable for the established business interests than is the alternative. Hoping for new capitalist profit centres to emerge is insane, because it will take far too long, and, in capitalism, it’s a case of ‘one dollar, one vote’ and the weight of current business interests will ALWAYS crush any innovation, no matter how beneficial to humanity.
Anyone know any more about this?
Daily Mail — In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
Heads up: UK TV tonight – Meet the Climate Sceptics – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v – shows Monckton peddling his lies.
NBC launches climate change series at Yale
By Grace Patuwo, Staff Reporter
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/26/nbc-launches-climate-change-series-at-yale/
Gavin Schmidt talks about the politics of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krXF9Icfa6k
I think the fact this January has been close to average unlike last December has no doubt helped, unlike in the US where January has been ever bit as brutal as December. I suspect had this winter rivaled or beat the winter of 1963 (the coldest in the last century) you would see a rise in skepticism. Also I find British news tends to be more global in scope than the US so the average person knows more about what is happening elsewhere not just in their own country. Off course when all is said is done, I think this winter will come out as colder than normal, but only because December was -5C below normal. I suspect the Jan-Feb averages will be pretty close to average maybe even slightly above in some places. As for climategate, I think it was the tabloids who played that up the most and many Brits read it for gossip and entertainment not facts. Nobody actually believes the tabloids and if you do you need your head examined.
Mike Roddy @15:
“It’s time to think about prosecuting the oil and coal companies for public endangerment. Since people have been killed from their negligence even without considering carbon, criminal penalties are called for. As with state GHG reductions, regional DA’s may have to be the ones to take us forward.”
Yes, it is time to give serious thought to that. But it won’t happen until the situation reaches the point where it won’t be “public endangerment” that they’ll be charged with, but “crimes against humanity”.
We should give thought to collecting evidence now. The Internet is too ephemeral and can be easily purged.
Speaking of old, conservative men, a recent study described here finds that holding such a world view gives them more self-esteem even while making them more prejudiced. Liberals tend to lose self-esteem as they get older, apparently because they’re less certain that the values and institutions they’ve upheld over the course of their lives are necessarily the best.
I’ve seen a change in attitude on discussion boards – that is discussion boards set up to discuss other topics, but which have threads on climate change. It’s not a sea change yet, but the deniers are having a harder time and not allowed to get away with the rubbish they spout. A year or so back deniers were prolific and given free rein (except for a few of us showing them up). Now a lot more people are ridiculing them.
Probably the disastrous weather we’re getting in Australia helps. Although that can’t be the only thing, because we’ve been suffering weather disasters for the past decade – record drought, record fires and now record floods (and an alarmingly large cyclone Yasi heading our way).
The other factor is that many have realised the fuss surrounding the stolen emails was a storm in a teacup as far as science is concerned, and a crime as far as media reporting of it went.
My original prediction about how climategate will be remembered:
in alphabetical order, between Billygate and debategate. You remember those gates, right?
Yes there are active deniers here in the UK but they do tend to be of the demographic described – they get hot under the collar when Peak Oil is mentioned too. I think it may at least partially stem from the fact that they grew up in a world where, into the 1950s and 60s, an increasingly cornucopian vision of the future prevailed, despite the shadow of the Cold War. The young people I speak to express denial much less, but what is a problem is that so many conflicting messages have bombarded them from the media that they are often rather unclear as to what the reality is. This is to a large part down to the “false balance” stance which too many sectors of the media have adopted – where the likes of Benny Peiser are asked to comment against a story based on actual science. I’ve challenged the BBC over this, asking why then do they not bring in Creationists to counter items on evolutionary biology, if they want to be consistent, but I have not received anything like a satisfactory answer.
The CRU emails hack is mentioned less and less these days: it always was a storm in a teacup, a manufactured pseudoscandal. It wasted many of our hours in manning the barricades, but we’d all do that again I’m sure!
But we still need far better clarity in communicating the science over here, and we need it like yesterday!
Cheers – John
The CRU emails hack is mentioned less and less these days: it always was a storm in a teacup, a manufactured pseudoscandal.
That’s why Cuccinelli is pushing so hard for Michael Mann’s emails. They need fresh material. The show must go on and their audience has a short attention span.
We are different, we are a nation of engineers and inventors and absolutely don’t take kindly to people giving us a line of BS, and we tell it like it is, ergo the likes of Fox News AKA “The Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” or a “Tea party” AKA “I deny your reality and substitute my own” type movement would get very short shrift here because “IT IS GARBAGE and HATE MONGERING!”
A good example is Lord Monckton being thought of as the “Potty Peer” I.E. as an eccentric and certainly not someone you would ask to speak in front of the US senate on climate change after all, like it or not he is not an expert (however if he would like to be, we have a number of University that should be able to help him, follow that with say 30 years of hard work and he might be in with a chance of being taken seriously).
For the Potty Peer’s latest shenanigans see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-wins-battle-over-climate-show-2199930.html)
As for the creationist issue, in the main the people UK do not go for the “You just made that up” stuff we generally like and respect both truth and proof and appear to have a large amount of respect for Charles Darwin so much so that he is featured on the back of the ten pound note http://www.mintjelly.com/photos/10_pound_note.jpg
As a nation we love to take the mick, so waving the back of the affore mentioned tenner at a Creationist who has parked on your doorstep while spouting some drivel about eyes being too complex to have evolved naturally can be considered really good sport, especially if you can get the little cherub to foam at the mouth.
Can you imagine how much fun we would have with the likes of Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, James Inhofe etc … essentially individuals who spout “Loose Stool Water” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPRThhXT-xc get jumped on hard very hard here, we don’t like it, nor do we put up with it and neither should you in the US as quite frankly you deserve way better!
The silver bullet = An education that includes science!
I’d like to see Cuccinelli’s emails plastered all over the net. See how he likes it!
Cheers – John
Re Michael, while at it
Climate Models, Climate Forcing and Climate Change: Dr. Gavin Schmidt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPavvQme60s&NR=1
With any kind of knowledge of climate change the cold is good and heat waves are extremely dangerous; as was the European one a few years back killing over 35,000 people.
The difference being that in cold conditions you can keep putting on layers until you are out of danger. In heat, the reverse is obviously only possible up to a certain limit.
Cheers – John
The Christian Science Monitor appears to be “doubt-mongering.”
And the commenters are just as clueless as they were last time I looked in. (Or maybe this is how they earn their beer money.)