PowerSwitch

There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm

Is this bad news, or a sign that Gandhi was right when he said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" and it won't be long before everyone really does get it?

It's Climategate and the winter 'cold snap'.

We'll see what happens when we, here, get the next record hot summer.

JohnB wrote:a sign that Gandhi was right when he said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" and it won't be long before everyone really does get it?

^^^ this.

Nobody was really arsed before, but now people are being forced to take some kind of a position on it.

The sceptics will remain strong until their position becomes either untenable or irrelevant.

Climate Change and Peak Oil will both become irrelevant because this country, and possibly most of the developed world, will go bust before either takes effect, reducing world wide emissions and fuel use to Third World levels. Meanwhile we should prepare for both the above because those preparations will set us up for national bankruptcy.

I have observed the media putting a subtly climate-sceptic slant on things of late. I strongly suspect that gentle pressure is being put on programme-makers by their bosses, who in turn are having gentle pressure put on them by the PTB - quite likely in preparation for the new Age of Coal.

For example, in programmes and articles about prehistory, I've noticed a definite increase in phrases like, "During one of the earth's many periods of natural climate change..." - that sort of thing.

Also of course this coldish winter gets rid of the palpable evidence for climate change that, in Britain, we were seeing until a couple of years ago.

Most important though is basic denial. The nearer a problem looms, the more desperately people look away from it.

Well, as deniers say, the sea level can't rise because the sea would just run off the edge of the earth.

foodimista wrote:Well, as deniers say, the sea level can't rise because the sea would just run off the edge of the earth.

LOL

Ludwig wrote:I have observed the media putting a subtly climate-sceptic slant on things of late...

For example, in programmes and articles about prehistory, I've noticed a definite increase in phrases like, "During one of the earth's many periods of natural climate change..." - that sort of thing.

This is not subtly climate-sceptic. It's the truth and very important to understand. The best climate change education available is to learn how finely balanced the Earth system is. In the past, just a 1W/square meter insolation was enough to tip us in and out of ice ages, +/- 8C and km of ice of northern Europe. Emissions of greenhouse gases so far, are providing a 1.8W/m2 forcing.

It's important to learn about the periods of natural climate change, shows how small changes make big differences. The Earth is not a great big lump, impervious to all impacts, it's hypersensitive.

Call You and Yours on Radio 4 at lunchtime was quite interesting. It was a phone in about people's views on Global Warming. The pro arguments did seem more convincing to me than the anti ones. but then I might be biased.

clv101 wrote:It's important to learn about the periods of natural climate change, shows how small changes make big differences. The Earth is not a great big lump, impervious to all impacts, it's hypersensitive.

Perhaps you could persuade your Dad, Chris, that because I have been saying that possible reduced insolation at the moment might be causing a cold spell that might last a few years I am not saying that there is no underlying Global Warming trend caused by extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is possible to have a cooling period at the same time as GW is getting worse.

He doesn't need to

But what is this cooling you are talking about? I see only warming (yeah, ok, strip out the short term noise).

That Radio 4 programme was awful. Same old 'must get a balance between the two side' stuff. Science vs Fantasy.

Why do they keep trotting out Philip Stott, who pretends not to be a denialist? Is he on the BBC's celebrity payroll?

clv101 wrote: In the past, just a 1W/square meter insolation was enough to tip us in and out of ice ages, +/- 8C and km of ice of northern Europe. Emissions of greenhouse gases so far, are providing a 1.8W/m2 forcing.

Or, as Hansen so well describes it, one of those tiny little Christmas tree lights for every square metre of the planet's surface.

biffvernon wrote:That Radio 4 programme was awful. Same old 'must get a balance between the two side' stuff. Science vs Fantasy.

Why do they keep trotting out Philip Stott, who pretends not to be a denialist? Is he on the BBC's celebrity payroll?

It was a bit unbalanced, having someone with plenty of broadcasting experience against a proper climate scientist who hesitated a bit at times, but was still more convincing.

JohnB wrote:It was a bit unbalanced, having someone with plenty of broadcasting experience against a proper climate scientist who hesitated a bit at times

That's a good point, John. Philip Stott is not a climate scientist, but a botanist whose special interest has been the ecology of Indonesian grasslands. He is very media savvy and since retiring has made a career of pushing his agenda in the media. He sets about subtly sowing little doubts in people's minds. He tries to come over as a fair and impartial scientist but when you look at his bedfellows, the people he shares platforms with, it is clear that he is embedded in the denialsphere.

Real climate scientists are just too reasonable, polite, non-shouty, to get the message over in this tough rough world. But of course that's the nature of scientific discourse. It's a big problem with no obvious answers.

Do read Chris's blog and our following discussion on http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2010/01/science-and-the-media/