Climate sceptics are winning the battle for public opinion – or are they?
By Geoffrey Lean Last updated: September 21st, 2013
You’ve got to hand it to the climate sceptics. Over the last years they seem to have been winning the battle for public opinion. A new survey shows that the proportion of Britons who believe the world’s climate is not changing has increased almost fourfold since 2005 from four to 19 per cent, and almost doubled in the last year. Meanwhile – the survey, just published by the UK Energy Research Centre, shows – those that accept that the overwhelming scientific conclusion that it is doing so have dropped from 91 per cent eight years ago to 72 per cent today. And yet, despite all their efforts, these figures show that three quarters of the people of the country still reject their arguments.
It is little surprise that they have made inroads. Over the last years they have run rings round both the green pressure groups and the scientific community. They have not done so, I contend, through the validity of their arguments: though they have raised some important issues, such as the slowdown in the increase of air surface temperatures, I – like almost all scientists in the field – believe most of what they say to be both wrong and misleading. But – though far outnumbered by their opponents – they have mobilised and made their case far more effectively.
Next week the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will launch the first of a series of massive reports on the state of the science, in a very different atmosphere than on the last occasion, six years ago. Then its conclusions were almost universally accepted, and largely uncritically publicised. But a few errors among the reports’ thousands of pages, uncovered a couple of years later, were brilliantly exploited by the sceptics and massively mishandled by the scientists, causing an erosion in the IPCC’s authority among the public and the press alike,
Ever since the scientific community has come off worse in the public debate, often undermined by its tendency to focus on uncertainties, while the sceptics betrayed no doubt. In a sense they were trapped by their ways of working: researchers are most interested in what is unknown – or uncertain – rather than what is accepted and so, not unnaturally, focus on it in discussion. They also argue that they did not sign up for public debate when they chose to become scientists, a point that would carry more weight had they not delighted in soaking up the plaudits when the wind was behind them, only to dive for cover when the going got rough.
There is less excuse for the environmental groups, whose very purpose is to make a case to the public, press and policymakers, and thus bring about change. But they too largely quit the field when the controversy began. Friends of the Earth, for example, declined to enter the lists on behalf of the scientists at the University of East Anglia whose emails were leaked in November 2009 – and in some cases skilfully misrepresented by the sceptics – because they had not yet held a meeting to discuss it. They finally held their meeting, and issued a statement, months after the event. The inconvenient truth is that all too often the pressure groups, dependent on popular support for funds, are shamefully reluctant to battle a head wind.
All that being so, it seems pretty remarkable that three quarters of the British public still accept the scientists’ and environmentalists’ case that the climate is changing, with a similar proportion agreeing that humanity is at least partially responsible. There are not many such controversial subjects that record so large a majority on one side, let alone on the side that has made the lesser effort to state its case. Sixty per cent of Britons remain “concerned” about climate change, nearly twice as many as say they are not, and more than two thirds agree that: “it is my responsibility to do something about climate change”.
It is a similar story when it comes to windpower, the renewable source most – sometimes justifiably – criticized by sceptics, which receives an overwhelmingly bad press in Britain. Support has, not surprisingly, fallen sharply – from over 80 per cent three years ago – to 64 per cent today. But it still retains the backing of nearly two thirds of Britons, almost twice the proportion of those that favour nuclear power, and more than those who embrace gas, currently much hyped by sceptics, the Government and most commentators.
All, of which perhaps goes to show that the public are less swayed by media and political fashion than those of us working in those fields like to believe. To be honest, I find that reassuring. But I guess I would, wouldn’t I?
Showing 1-25 of 276 comments
K DunnToday 07:35 AM
I guess those that want facts, and not theory from our scientist will not change. There is no consensus what-so-ever. Just a whole lot of media propaganda. When our science is based on the religion of uniformitarianism, it becomes a joke and nothing to pay attention to at all. Truth is, all the planets in our system are warming up incredibly, and science has no answers except to try to blame man for this. Go away propagandist (scientist).
These ‘poll results’, which Lean is so vigorously rubbing his thighs over, carry no weight whatsoever. It’s akin to all these spittle-flecked swivel-eyed eco-loons who still try and claim that there is a 97% ‘scientific consensus’ – which is totally discredited and worthless.
The survey Lean refers to was carried out by The Energy Research Centre, which has a vested interest in furthering the ‘man-made global warming’ hoax in order to perpetuate the ruinable energy scam which is being foisted upon us by them and others.
Lean, give it up. Your articles are utter rubbish, and your weak attempts to mollify those of us who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis are transparent and pathetic. The jig is up.
“A new survey shows that the proportion of Britons who believe the world’s climate is not changing has increased almost fourfold since 2005 from four to 19 per cent, and almost doubled in the last year.”
So what has this got to do with climate scepticism? Climate sceptics don’t argue that the climate isn’t changing, but that mankind is only responsible for a small fraction, if any, of the change. Bit of a straw man I think but not surprising coming from the alarmist camp.
“They have not done so, I contend, through the validity of their arguments: ” Whether you contend or not Mr Lean the fact is that they have not only put forward a plethora of valid arguments from the myth of polar bear extinction, the fairytales of sinking islands, the desperate last stand of hidden ocean heat they have also torpedoed the alarmist argument exposing their lack of understanding of solar effect, cloud mechanics and natural oceanic climate influences. However like most alarmists you don’t let truth get in the way of a good scam.
Bad journalism.
Reiterating false alarmist claims.
Pushing scare stories.
Publishing unproven theory as fact.
Now about the BBC and the Guardian, oh, and the other journalists who jumped on the Alarmist bandwagon which never ever came true.
In Australia these questions are now being asked.
Quote;
“These are the real questions now Flannery has been sacked.
Which journalists should pay for making heroes of cranks
and gurus of alarmists?
Which journalists have been enemies of reason as
they’ve mindlessly pushed one of the greatest scares of our lives”?
http://www.couriermail.com.au/…
Another thing.
Why is this junk science being taught to impressionable young minds?
Public opinion is swinging, despite the massive and sustained propaganda campaign by the likes of the BBC, who can hardly make a programme without a bolted on 5 min section on CAGW. This change is because it’s becoming apparent that the dire predictions are simply not coming true. Before long the DENIALIST!!!! tag will be attached to the warmists who still refuse to admit they were fools or liars.
Richard_de_LacyYesterday 03:48 AM
All this drivel from Lean and his fellow trolls, pretending that the childish ‘man’made global warming’ religious cult has any relation to science, reminds me of the old saying, “If you tell a lie often enough, people will realise you’re a boring little fact-averse pillock,” – or something along those lines.
This is all too ridiculous to discuss.
There is an interesting meta-aspect to it, though: watching how Western Civilisation (and its Intellect) disintegrates. When governments aim to ‘control global temperatures to a degree or two’, it’s either a gag in a comedy show or you know their days – and the days of their civilisation – are numbered (to a degree or two).
After going back a day later to read the comments, one thing is certain, there is something sad about the commenter Peter Simmons he obviously needs a hobby.
There will be no consideration given to climate change and disputed global warming until heterosexuals globally agree a method of reproductive control.
Without that measures to control climate change will cost so much I would recommend to all to ignore them even if it involves disregarding or contesting bad laws.
Rifleman185309/22/2013 07:42 PM“Friends of the Earth declined to enter the lists on behalf of the scientists at the University of East Anglia whose emails were leaked in November 2009 – and in some cases skilfully misrepresented by the sceptics – because they had not yet held a meeting to discuss it.”Then, for once, FoE showed a bit of sense, didn’t they?The e-mails made clear that raw data had been deliberately destroyed, data to fill gaps had been deliberately fabricated by Ian Harrison, and Harrison also admitted that he could make no sense of their database, nor as to how any weighting had been carried out, so the conclusions published by Phil Jones could not possibly be peer reviewed – as any peer review worthy of the name HAS to have access to raw data, and full details of how any weighting of the raw data was done, and why.I also think it worth noting that, although the cowboy outfit at UEA have been repeatedly accused (verbally and in print) of all the above crimes against science, not ONE of the accused has taken any legal action against their accusers. Why not? Because the rock-solid defence against an action for libel or slander is to be able to prove that your accusation is true – and Jones et al know it.
But, Mr Lean – allow me to explain the real problem you are up against, which has nothing to do with any ‘Denialists’, Big Oil bribery, or any such nonsense.
The trouble is, that your lot started shouting “WOLF!! WOLF!!” in 1978 – yes, 1978 – when Gore and Hansen performed their latter-day sale of the Magic Suit of Clothes to the US Congress. That’s 35 YEARS ago, Lean – and you are still shouting “WOLF!!”, even though the Wolf of Catastrophic Global Warming has utterly failed to show – let alone to cause the utter destruction predicted by the the Al & Jim Show.
Have you ever seen that dreary non-spectacle, ‘Waiting for Godot’?
Well, you and the Warmists are the two losers sitting on a bench, endlessly rambling on about how it will be when CAGW Godot, arrives – and you’ve only just noticed that the audience is steadily drifting towards the exits.
As the critics put it – “This show isn’t another ‘Mousetrap’ ”
(PS do I clock the special award for today’s Maximum Number of Mixed Metaphors in One Post’?)
January 2014 – What’s Up With The Ice?
What if man-made climate change is all in the mind?
Arctic Sea Ice Volume
British Hydrological Society
