Climate change not man-made, say majority of Britons: poll
November 15, 2009
Commuters wait on the platform shrouded by fog at Isleworth station in west London in 2006. Less than half of Britons believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to a poll carried out for The Times newspaper and published on Saturday.
Less than half of Britons believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to a poll carried out for The Times newspaper and published on Saturday.
Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made.
Almost a third, or 32 percent, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 percent believe the world is not warming.
Only slightly more than a quarter (28 percent) think climate change is the most serious problem that the world faces.
The findings of the poll threaten to undermine British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's position at next month's UN conference in Copenhagen where world leaders will attempt to craft a new accord to curb greenhouse gases.
The Times said the scepticism illustrated the difficulty the government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes to help meet Britain's legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 34 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
Some 53 percent of people questioned oppose the idea of increasing the cost of motoring to encourage people to drive less.
The poll was carried out by Populus for The Times by interviewing a random sample of 1,504 adults by telephone on November 6-8.
(c) 2009 AFP
Feb 08, 2010
If you ever wondered how human's went off on a complete tangent in the past, all you have to do is look at the slavish way in which people have fallen for the AGW lie.
What a farce!
Now, one could do a scientifically valid statistical study and find that nearly 100% of AGW 'scientists' are liberal (far left of center) politically.
What this implies is that the institution of AGW does not approach the science from a disinterested perspective. In other words, science proper must be unbiased by personal political views or advantage.
The AGW environMentalists rely polls every time they claim a consensus.
In other words, there may be a multitude of viable theories that serve to explain GW observations if all possible causes are not ruled out. This is nearly impossible in 'global weather science', because the multitude of variables cannot be isolated.
Scientific theories should be based on empirically verifiable and reproducible observations, and should allow for future accurate predictions to be made, as a means validating, modifying, or rejecting the theory. Global Weather science falls far short of the ideal scientific method.
Of course if you believe most scientists are atheist, liberal, commu-nazis, then you can reject the science of that offhand as well and believe that "finally people are waking up" to that too.
The arctic ice at the north pole is melting like never before. If we give in to those idiots that say there is no greenhouse warming we will have to face a cataclysm that makes very other natural disaster look puny. The national economy of every nation will collapse all at the same time. All the coastal cities will be dead or taxing everybody up to their eyeballs to build dikes and drainage pumps. Imagine if every major coastal city resembled new orleans at the end of 2 decades, in every country with a coastline. What do they get when they lie about it? Whatever it is it will seem like it was not worth it after the polar caps melt completely. More bad news to come!
This study doesn't change the world ...
It first needs to be replicated.
What this study is that we don't need a big increase in CO2 to get a big increase in global temperatures ...
Eat your hearts out, right wingers.
You will find much more evidence of right wing politics among global warming nay sayers than you will find left wing politics among those are intelligent and open minded enough to accept the obvious truth that CO2 and methane emissions are warming the planet. Ninety-nine percent of global warming skeptics are very right wing - a la Republican party.
And please stop the pontificating about the 'scientific method'.
Of course, global warming will require political action. That is no way undermines its solid foundations in science. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
If you had a background in science, you would know global warming doesn't require any increase in CO2 emissions. There are other gases such as methane, produced in vast quantities by our livestock, that are far potent.
To jump on an article like this and claim it 'overthrows the global warming thesis' is a clear of a layman.
what
It's a lot easier to notice it was 70 degrees in new york today than to understand stories about dark and light moths adapting to air pollution
The facts are that the empirical data does anything but support the notion that mankind & his industrial (capitalistic) activities is in any way, shape, or form the harbinger of destruction for the planet's natural climate. Science shows that CO2 emissions manmade or natural levels have nothing to do with raising temperatures on planet earth...
http://www.physor...550.html
The empirical evidence from science is all around us and planetary climate change has nothing to do with the propagation of capitalism and conservative, anti-socialistic political ideology.
It does not disprove anything about climate change, simply states that the ratio of carbon in the air and absorbed in the soil has remained about the same.
This makes sense to anyone with even a slight backing in chemistry. The concentrations of gases in systems are generally proportionate to a certain ratio, even if one side of the reaction is ridiculous disproportionate to normalcy.
Furthermore, it talks about CO2 and CO2 only. As CO2 rises, so does the amount of CO2 in the soil, granted, but that does not eliminate its effects on the environment. Instead of being stored in sugars or fossil fuels, carbon is now in the form of CO2, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been clearly linked to global temperature variations.
If anything, this study only proves that climate change will not occur as rapidly as we believe, however it does not in any way disprove climate change. The headline is not the article.
In the 22nd century I predict nobody but the rich will have videos of disaster movies.
((It [the article I just mentioned]does not disprove anything about climate change, simply states that the ratio of carbon in the air and absorbed in the soil has remained about the same.))
Okay, you’re right…and I never said that NO climate change had occurred over the last 150 years, just that there’s no empirical evidence to support the otherwise vacuous notion that either gradually fluctuating CO2 levels can or have caused climate change, and if that were the case, that those fluctuating CO2 levels and ensuing alleged warming of the planet can be empirically attributed to human industrial (capitalistic) activities. I think the evidence bares out the fact that neither fluctuating CO2 levels nor human industrial (capitalistic) activities can be linked to purported climate change. Such changes are more attributable to naturally occurring planetary and interplanetary phenomenon (i.e. solar maxima and minima)
Yes it does, especially when one considers that plants absorb CO2 as their exclusive inhalant for respiratory activities and that oceans absorb huge amounts of CO2, keeping CO2 levels virtually constant at .038% of the total atmospheric content… http://en.wikiped...mosphere …for 150 years.
“Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction (of CO2) since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero”
http://www.physor...550.html
((Furthermore, it talks about CO2 and CO2 only. As CO2 rises, so does the amount of CO2 in the soil, granted, but that does not eliminate its effects on the environment.))
And what adverse effects could that be pray-tell? If plants need CO2 to live isn’t logical to assume that the more CO2 is found in the atmosphere the healthier plants would be?
And what adverse effects could that be pray-tell? If plants need CO2 to live isn’t logical to assume that the more CO2 is found in the atmosphere the healthier plants would be?
((amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been clearly linked to global temperature variations.)
I trust being a person of science you’ve heard of the Milankovitch cycle? This naturally occurring phenomenon causes variations in eccentricity of the earth’s orbit every100 K years or so. This changing of the earth’s orbital geometry (circular to elliptical) causing temperatures to rise. CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007)…showing CO2 is not necessarily directly connected to *evil* rightwing capitalistic activities.
http://www.skepti...ture.htm
It does indeed disprove that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming.
"It does indeed disprove that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming."
...should have read...
"It does indeed PROVE that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming."
300 parts per million, now.
Sounds like the usual denier confusion
"I trust being a person of science you’ve heard of the Milankovitch cycle? "
The series of videos at
http://www.youtub...3610#p/u
covers the Milankovitch cycles and the Caillon paper and how the denier groups have distorted or misrepresented the meaning of the results usually by cherry picking the bits that they agree with and cutting out the bits that don't fit.
If you learn something that's great, if you feel these videos are wrong, you can explain to me and the world of AGW believers why they are wrong.
I hear today that kids would rather opt for softer sciences than the hard stuff so that reflects pretty much the decline in the standing of science. Physics graduates have dropped off the proverbial cliff.
I also expect the vast majority of scientifically disinterested would rather just watch Eastenders, read the Sun/Star than worry about doom & gloom. The UK went through lots of that in the 70s with post punk world movies, global winters etc, I remember loads of that, don't blame them.
Life only exists in a small and confined spectrum. While CO2 is converted by plants to make sugar, this doe sin no ways mean that more CO2 is better fro plants. First off, the plants need large amounts of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous to build the cellular structure needed to process the carbon dioxide. These are being depleted from the soils rather quickly by overfarming. At the same time, higher sugar does not mean the plants will be in any way healthier. In response, plants as of late are very high in sugars, but much lower in protein mass. While plants survive this fairly well, it's been found that most herbivore insect young are not maturing fast enough, since they do not get enough protein in their diet. I.e., the effect trickles down the food web.
Again, the study does not talk about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the ratio of CO2 that is in air versus amount absorbed. And again, simple chemical logic dictates that this ratio will move towards equilibrium no matter the concentrations one either side. And again, fossil fuels and sugars are NOT CO2, so this does in no way represent the amount of CO2 that has been released. It only says that the earth is better at absorbing it than previously thought, which does NOT diminish the amount of CO2 that has been released by any significant margin. The .7 +-.7 % margin applies to the ratio, not the amount of CO2 released into the air, which, again, is only natural and has NOTHING to do with the amount of CO2 that is being released.
Being a man of science I not only know of the Milankovitch cycle, but also know we have deviated from it vastly. Yes. we are at a stage when Carbon levels in the atmosphere should be higher, but by a factor about ten times smaller than they are now. Current trends in the atmosphere are anything but natural.
*Denier*? If you mean by that do I deny the Leftwing anti-capitalist propaganda that's being churned by Al-Gore's radical Leftist GW Alarmists...the answer would be a resounding "YES!"
I don't know what you mean about *confusion* other than to amplify that state which is personified by those who wish to propagate the lie of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
((the Milankovitch cycles and the Caillon paper and how the denier groups have distorted or misrepresented ))
How does one *misrepresent* empirical data when that data clearly shows that human industrial (capitalistic) activities absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 levels and with climate change over a 100K year period? Please feel free to elaborate!
((If you learn something that's great))
My friend, we all learn something everyday of our lives. Isn't that what life is, a virtually unbounded learning curve? What gets me is that many folks don't admit that fact.
Good for you, however your assertion is quite vacuous in terms of factual content. If the Milankovitch cycle is actually true (there's good reason to think it is due to the empirical evidence even though we weren't technical enough over most of the past 100K yrs ago to absolutely see this cycle) we can see from it that earth by virtue of its own celestial mechanics naturally controls the dynamics of climate change which have fluctuated so many times in the 4.6 billion yr history of our planet without ANY interference from the *evil* rightwing/fascist, Christian-fundamentalist/imperialistic, capitalistic engine of human industrial progress. So in light of that fact, may I say that the empirically derived facts clearly show a considerable measure of absurdity on ther part of GW Alarmists (who tend to be anti-capitalistic socialists) to continue to sputter their nonsense.
People need to remember though that it's not just the political AGW movement that must be defeated, but any socio-political area where the top tiers of government are over-reaching their bounds.
If it's anything other than national defense, the People need to ask themselves, "is federal government control/involvement really the best way to handle this, for the People and Their individual freedoms?".
I agree 100%.
After the ice caps melt from greenhouse warming, huge tracts of permafrost will be exposed and the summertime heat will cause frozen marshes and peat bogs to to support growth of flora and bacteria that release methane by the gigaton. The methane is a potent greenhouse gas that will cause accelerated warming- runaway greenhouse warming.
I agree 100%.
After the ice caps melt from greenhouse warming, huge tracts of permafrost will be exposed and the summertime heat will cause frozen marshes and peat bogs to to support growth of flora and bacteria that release methane by the gigaton. A new group about this is http://groups.goo...ng?hl=en
Ad hominem attacks is what Leftwing radicals (like the GW Alarmists) always use when they attempt to shout down the opposition.
((there is a difference between a natural cycle that moves between 220-280 ppm of CO2 and a sudden deviation of up to 380 ppm))
The amount of CO2 in the atm today is .038% (.038/100)...that's a pitifully small sliver yet just enough to enrich and give life to the plants which in turn help to sustain animal and human life. There is no one-to-one correlation between human (capitalistic) industrial output and massive increases in CO2.
((And it coincides completely with the industrial revolution and increased CO2 outputs, and with no natural processes whatsoever))
"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth"
http://en.wikiped...ariation
Not really :-)
Ironic, since I've only seen you do it on these boards.
"The amount of CO2 in the atm today is .038% (.038/100)...that's a pitifully small sliver yet just enough to enrich and give life to the plants which in turn help to sustain animal and human life."
That is complete biological fallacy. Life only exists in a small spectrum of variation. Something that on paper seems like a tiny difference is hugely significant when it comes to the entire biosphere.
The fact of the mater is that those extra 5% are, quite literally, extra. They are not reabsorbed into the cycle again quickly, and indeed, they poison the environment.
It seems to me your entire premise for denying AGW is based off some serious misinformation and an inability to understand that even small changes in CO2 have massive repercussions on a global scale.
Such as what? If you mean tagging Far-Left-leaning environmentalist anti-capitalists as to what their real aspirations are, I don't really think one can say that calling a spade "a spade" is anything but giving an accurate description. To be honest there is a lot more "heat" being generated than "light" on the facts of this debate over the myth of AGW. But to be honest, it's those of you (maybe not you) AGW Alarmists who usually call people like me who deny the AGW myth from empirical data as "rightwing extremist", or "fascist", or "nazi", or "Imperialist" or other such braindead vacuous ad-hominems. And it's all simply because we haven't drinken from non-scientist buffoon Al-Gore's magic AGW potion.
((That is complete biological fallacy. Life only exists in a small spectrum of variation.))
Um I don't think so. Life's variations are in the tens if not hundreds of millions. CO2 helps to sustains it! ;-)
Ok, and the planet has endured higher levels of CO2 than even the combined natural (95%) and the anthropogenic (~5%) experienced today in its deep past as the sedimentary and ice core records reveal. So tell me, how did life *survive* when natural levels fluctuated over the billions of yrs of earth history, before we had such an *evil rightwing extremist scourge* as industry (capitalism) to supposedly generate these *toxic* levels of CO2?
((They are not reabsorbed into the cycle again quickly, and indeed, they poison the environment))
Not so! The oceans and plant-dominated land biosphere absorb enough CO2 to keep any pruported deadly levels in check on a global, even more localized scale. CO2 is only 038/100% of the total atmosphere, hardly a deadly percentage for animal life (which includes us), and certainly not a toxic level for plants, who love the stuff like candy!
"Ok, and the planet has endured higher levels of CO2 than even the combined natural (95%) and the anthropogenic (~5%) experienced today in its deep past as the sedimentary and ice core records reveal."
First of all, not really, and second of all, life does not adapt nearly as fast as you seem to imagine. 20% over a million years is not the same as 5% in a few centuries.
"038/100%"
since regular carbon levels have been approximately .28% for hundreds and thousands of years, a rise of .1% is quite alarming indeed
Of course you're attempting to be condescending aren't you?
((All organisms are interwoven in very complex food groups. Alter any keystone species, and the entire system shifts))
To some degree, yet nature has a way of shifting things around. If one species becomes depleted or extinct, then another fills the available niche. Such has been the way of the world since before humans generally, and rightwing extremist fascist Christian-nazi capitalists in specific were here to pollute mother earth, right?
((Will global warming kill off life entirely? Heavens no))
Well you might ask some of the prehistoric megafauna that died out after the last ice age, the last time global warming occurred, which by anyone's calculations was about 10,000 years before Al-Gore and his GW Alarmist disciples cooked up this myth of AGW. ;-)
Good news: Nothing humans can do will destroy the dominant forms of life on Earth.
Bad news: The dominant forms of life on Earth are now, and (almost) always were, single celled and microscopic.
http://www.greend...an-made/
http://www.scienc...ys.shtml
http://www.nature...335.html