Thursday, 5 July 2007

Best Climate Change survey yet

From one of the most enthusiastic proponents of climate change catastrophism, the BBC, comes this report on the results of a recent survey in the UK.
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
Well, well, well. It seems the old adage that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time is holding true. The public has finally woken up to the false science of climate change and understands it's a grab for money and power.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
For the purposes of the statement a 'climate scientist' is one that believes that the models are 100% accurate and forecast doom. People like Richard Lindzen, John Christy etc etc etc are not considered 'climate scientists'. The fact that the Royal Society has fallen so far from its once lofty, honest perch is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century onwards.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Terrorism? Terrorism? Hahahahahahaha! Stupid leftards have been not only ignoring the threat of terrorism for years but actively supporting it with their inane excuses. I wonder how the ninnies feel being shown up for the dolts they are by the public. If Climate Brown Shirts are consistent then they'll need to lobby for billions of dollars to be spent on avoiding dog poo and then introduce a trillion dollar poo trading scheme in order to limit the amount of poo we need to deal with. It would therefore be possible to consider a carbon credit to poo credit exchange rate in those areas where one was a bigger issue than the other.
Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
"Still a lot to do" means that more money needs to be pumped into enviro propaganda.
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added. "However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
It has been over-hyped, people can see the evidence right in front of them and so of course they will have doubts. But could there be another reason why they're sceptical?
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Aha! I knew it! Those pesky pushers of a little thing called facts. How inconvenient.
Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change. "The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
To use a very British phrase - what complete bollocks. The BBC may be part of the loopy left but there's still The Guardian, which manages to take things to an even more unhinged level. The headline on this article is "If half the nation is in denial about the threats we face from climate change, what hope is there?"
I was more depressed by the findings of a single public opinion survey on climate change than I've been by all the pessimistic stories about how little is being done by governments and individuals to combat global warming.
Isn't that the most pathetic thing you've ever read on the subject?

The headline really should read "If half the nation is in denial about the threats we face from Islamic terrorism, what hope is there?"

Of course, The Guardian has been a supporter of Islamic terrorism since it first reared its ugly head and continues to enable outrages such as we saw over the last few days in the UK by trotting out the normal rubbish about Muslims being victims, the war in Iraq etc, so it's an unlikely headline.

No comments: