an IPSOS poll in the Observer show great confusion amongst us towards climate warming.
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that ‘many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change’, and that four out of 10 ‘sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say’. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change….’People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,’ said Downing. ‘Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn’t seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,’ he said.
We need solutions yet we also need to continue discussing the threats that face us. It is still too remote for too many people. Surely it can’t affect me?

This entry was posted in Climate change and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Confused?

  1. the Grit says:


    The main problem with convincing the majority of people of the threat of Global Warming is that it’s a myth. The only proponents of the theory -Al Gore, the United Nations, and that one guy at NASA – can easily be seen as pushing it for their own profit, and the evidence they use to support their claims is, to be kind, laughable. It also involves mathematics, which is a huge turn off for the vast majority of the world’s population. Also, it blames people for living the lives they have, mostly, been forced into and insists they should suffer more than they already do to solve a rather nebulous problem that our leaders don’t take seriously (Al Gore, our Presidential candidates, Speaker Pelosi, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and all the other politicians and upper level bureaucrats constantly fly around the world on private jets and travel from the airport to their destination in convoys of SUVs,) which can only make the common folk think, “screw you!” when the environmentalists demand that they cut back on their standard of living.

    On the other hand, and even though I think the Global Warming Movement is a scam, I do think that there is a core of good at the heart of it. We, as in the global population, do need to take a critical look at how we do things and where we invest our collective money, with an eye toward making things more efficient. Apparently, we won’t have the collective will to curb our population growth any time soon, so it’s imperative to devote ourselves to finding ways to provide for all those excess people that are being thrust on us. Personally, I tend to shy away from global thermonuclear war and its equivalent with biological weapons as a means of population control, so any rational means of shoring up our civilization for a bit longer has my interest.

    the Grit

  2. matt says:

    Definitely efficiency of resource use will drive change anyway. The current generation of kidz have ‘environment’ running through their blood stream. Wastewatch are doing a talk to my kid’s school assembly as I type. As the lady from Wastewatch said to me this morning; ‘This generation knows what we are talking about (the 3R’s), even the 3 year olds.’

    As the diagram implies there is confusion about what are the best solutions to resolve a myriad of problems. It takes excellent leadership, joined up thinking and coordination, funding and implementation from all sectors of society, being business, inventors, scientists, local & national government, NGOs & IGOs.

    These are very exciting times that we live in. (Although the 14m starving in Somalia right now after a drought of 3 years & war for 17 years won’t share those thoughts of course).

  3. the Grit says:

    Hi matt,

    There is another danger hidden in what you say, loss of individual freedom in the face of some fuzzy problem. Our politicians are already talking up the idea that we, the common folk, are going to have to sacrifice and suffer to solve Global Warming/habitat destruction/fuel prices/ and/or the plight of the blue legged dung beetle. The scary thing is that, when they go off on these rants, you can see the glow of joy in their eyes and the obvious muscle tremors in their arms from their effort not to rub their hands in glee.

    The point is, and I suspect I am far from alone in this, I’m not going to put up with Government imposed oppressive restrictions on my life style for the “common good,” especially not when members of said Government spend their time jetting back and forth and riding around in convoys of SUVs. I offer as evidence our current ethanol insanity, which has, conservatively estimated, pushed up our food prices by 10% and which is making a large number of politicians scramble to make nice with their constituents before the next election. There’s also the current drastic jump we’ve experienced in gas prices, which, according to the latest opinion polls, has driven 70 plus percent of our population to say, “screw the caribou and the beaches, drill for oil!”

    In other words, if we want real progress, our leaders need to understand that it has to be gradual, painless, and practical. Anything else will just piss people off.

    On the Somalia issue, that is sad, and I’m surprised that the UN and the EU haven’t done more to fix the situation.

    the Grit

  4. keithsc says:

    Hi Grit – do you really believe there are only Al Gore, the UN and one person at NASA who believe this theory? Yes it does involve maths but surely that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yet I agree with you blaming the poorer people is not going to help. It would be great if progress could be gradual, painless and practical. Perhaps it can – the Stern report here only talked about slowing economic growth now to avoid worse losses in the future not stopping growth altogether.

  5. the Grit says:

    Hi keithsc,

    For the most part, I summed up the list of initial believers. Through political, media, and peer pressure they’ve managed to force others into accepting their scam, but the trio I mentioned are behind the lie. Oh, and if you’re one of the Believers, you should take time to dig down to the base temperature data and discover just how flimsy the foundation for Global Warming really is.

    As to slowing economic growth, there are two questions along that path to be considered. How many people are you willing to kill by depriving them of improved health care, food supplies, shelter and education because their economic opportunities are artificially restricted? Once you put the brakes on the world economy, considering how complex it is, are you sure you can keep it from grinding to a halt?

  6. keithsc says:

    Hi Grit

    I studied a course with the Open University here in the UK because I genuinely wanted to find out if global warming was true or not and if it was what was causing it. We looked at temperatures from the Russian station in Antarctica and they did show a change in temperature. We also looked at the base global temperature and again that showed a warming. I had gone into the course with an open mind and it was enough to convince me.

    As for the global economy I don’t understand why spending money differently should cause a cause the economy to grind to a halt. Keynes actually recommended the Government should pay for people to dig holes and fill them up again at the time of the Great Depression if nothing better could be done to get money moving and create demand. Fortunately the Government found better things to spend its money on. Spending money acting on global warming might cause a slight decrease in economic growth as the Stern Report suggests but how much more is this being done now with the obscene expenditure on armaments.

    And if global warming caused by people’s activities is true then how much more suffering will be created as areas become uninhabitable.

  7. the Grit says:

    Hi k,

    The problem with Global Warming isn’t what the temperature data shows, but in how sparse that data is. Take Antarctica for instance, where the IPCC reports assume that a hand full of weather stations give an accurate picture of temperature changes over an entire Continent. While this may be a workable solution for some applications, it hardly supports the claim of detecting an average temperature change over the entire planet of one or two degrees a century. There are other huge gaps in the historic data, and the current data for that matter, such as having only one station covering half of Africa and no stations at all in India. Also, there is no historic atmospheric temperature data at all over the oceans, so the IPCC decided that water temperature data, taken sporadically by passing ships and from undetermined depths, is good enough and correlates directly with air temperatures. Oh, and while the US has the largest system of weather stations, we appear to be obsessed with the weather, you should take a peak at, which group has been doing a survey of our weather stations, before you trust their data to measure long term climate trends. In other words, the Global Warming theory is a fun subject to speculate about over a good dinner, but the current scientific basis supporting it is a joke, and the only reason it’s gotten any traction is because lots of people have figured out how to make money off it or have managed to use it to support their own political agenda.

    On the global economy, the point is that some are advocating spending money in less efficient ways for no real benefit. That equates to less investment in developing countries, which means lots of people not getting the increased standard of living they need to survive. Take Africa for example. Currently, our, rather unpopular, President has made increasing foreign aid to Africa a priority, and has done a good job at it. Since we’ve started sending mosquito nets instead of cash, a real dent has been made in the rate of malaria infection. However, if we divert excessive amounts of money into solar power or wind power subsides, which are quite inefficient and expensive, then it’s almost certain that the public is going to demand budget cuts before they accept tax increases. Now, while we’re the most charitable people on the planet were private giving is concerned, sending Government money overseas has never been popular, and aid to Africa is going to get slashed. A few million dollars worth of mosquito nets, or a few million dollars not spent to improve local agriculture will make a big difference, and people will die because of it. And we know this, not due to theoretical future climate variations, but because we have much better data on infection rates and starvation rates on which to base these predictions.

    I agree with you on the armaments point, but, until we perfect ourselves through genetic engineering, there’s not much that can be done about that.

    On your final point, you have to take Global Warming predictions with a large grain of salt. For instance, in the previous few years the IPCC and other Global Warming supporters were warning that increasing temperatures would cause droughts, and have even gone so far as to blame the big one in Africa on Global Warming. In the news this morning was an item saying that climate scientists suspect the current floods of the upper Mississippi river are due to Global Warming.

    It’s interesting to note that last winter in North America was the coldest on record, as were the snow fall totals. Thus, since the water table is high from the melting of said snow, and we’ve added huge amounts of flood control measures which, in the case of exceptionally high water levels, work to exaggerate the flood potential, it’s quite possible that the current floods could be caused by normal amounts of rain fall, but scientists don’t get big research grants to study that.

    the Grit

  8. keithsc says:

    Hi Grit

    Thanks for your comments. They are well informed, thoughtful and important. I still prefer to go along with the scientific opinion expressed in the IPCC as I believe they represent the bulk of scientific opinion at present. I agree it would be a disaster if America was to stop contributing aid to Africa where it can make a tremendous difference to people’s lives and I also agree that more research needs to be done as the climate is an incredibly complex structure and we are still only beginning to understand it. Yet climate predictions are becoming more accurate and the ones the IPCC predict are serious. They might not be based on as much evidence as we would like but they are based on the best evidence available.

Comments are closed.