Survey results spun to fit warmist agenda


Lots of spin

The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC are spruiking a new survey that they claim shows scepticism is on the way out. Take this from the Herald:

Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.

The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing.

When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.

Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.

Overall, less than 6 per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith University researchers found.

“It’s clear that people want the government to do something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal responsibility to act,” environmental and social psychologist Professor Joseph Reser said. (source)

Or this from the ABC:

A national survey reveals most Australians believe in, and are concerned about, climate change.

The study by Queensland’s Griffith University surveyed more than 3,000 Australians across the country and found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing and 90 per cent believe human activities are playing a role.

The research found less than 6 per cent of Australians are true climate change sceptics.

Griffith University Professor Joseph Reser says the results show public opinion has been greatly misrepresented in the media. (source)

What they have sneakily done here is to redefine the word “sceptics” to mean only those who believe humans have no influence whatsoever on the climate. This, of course, is utter nonsense, as the vast majority of sceptics acknowledge that human activity has some effect on climate. So before we even start, commonly used terminology has been misused to make it appear that sceptics are dwindling – phew, say Herald and ABC editors.

And when you look at the actual results, they also tell a very different story (as always). Here is the key question from the original report (source – 1MB PDF):

Q9. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion?

  • Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes: 4.9%
  • Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes: 12.6%
  • Climate change is partly caused by natural processes and partly by human activity: 45.8%
  • Climate change is mainly caused by human activity: 27.6%
  • Climate change is entirely caused by human activity: 4.2%

Which would I be in? Somewhere in the middle of the 12.6% that climate change is mainly caused by natural processes and the 45.8% who say climate change is partly caused by natural processes and partly by human activity. So according to the Herald and the ABC, I’m not a sceptic – and I run a climate sceptic blog! Hilarious.

So without our warmist goggles on, let’s interpret the results a different way, shall we?

  • Less than a third of the population think that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by human activity (31.8%)
  • Almost twice that number think that climate change is mainly or partly caused by natural processes (58.4%)

So in reality, the survey shows a healthy scepticism of the claim that human activity is predominantly to blame for climate change. But that doesn’t fit the warmist agenda does it?

Another result was that 85% of respondents were either fairly or very concerned that electricity would become unaffordable in the future. But strangely, that result didn’t make it into the Fairfax or ABC articles…

Friday's (non-carbon tax) reads


No carbon tax (articles)

By popular demand (!) a carbon [dioxide] tax-free day. Here’s a few links to enjoy:

Response to Climate Commission’s Report

For those of you who didn’t catch it the first time, here are Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth, taking the scaremongering report The Critical Decade to pieces. But Labor don’t need to take any notice of these filthy deniers because “the science is settled” and “the debate’s over”. Really? You decide.

Hockey Stick in a Nutshell

Remember the Hockey Stick? Mann and the University of Virginia are on collision course with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Watts Up With That posts a summary for those of us who haven’t followed the twists and turns. Prediction: it’s looking very bad for Michael Mann, and very good for the integrity of science.

Does ethics require us to believe in tornado witches?

Lubos Motls lays into an extraordinary article that claims we are ethically bound to link tornados to CO2, even though there is no science to back it up. Here’s a taste:

A huge percentage of people, including some people who are very close to me for various reasons, will start to curse you as soon as you suggest that ghosts and spiritism are nonsense or that the motion of glasses on the table, as well as the motion of all other material objects we have ever seen, agrees with the laws of physics. When you say such a thing, they make you sure that you are attacking an essential part of their soul and human dignity – because the bulk of their knowledge and perception of human dignity is built out of superstitions and lies. The bulk of their brain is composed of rubbish.

It gets better. Read it all.

Germany’s knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima

German climate madness, as Merkel abandons nuclear power which will mean… more emissions from coal. One day, the Greens will be called to account for the damage they are wreaking on our economy and way of life. And I will be there in the front row, enjoying every minute.

And finally…

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

$20 a tonne: the price of economic suicide


Economy, you're next

Any price on carbon [dioxide] in Australia is a pointless gesture that will do nothing for the climate. Nothing. At all. And that’s if you assume that CO2 is causing dangerous warming. So our government, without a democratic mandate, intends to tax a harmless trace gas and wreck our economy for no purpose whatsoever. And yet many people, including Julia Gillard and her government, think that’s a good idea? O.M.G. as the saying goes.

At least by trying to stick to the middle ground, $20 a tonne will annoy everyone: business and consumers because it’s too high, eco-nazis, sorry, Greens, because it’s too low. So there is a glimmer of hope that sanity might prevail at the 11th hour, but it’s looking less and less likely.

JULIA Gillard’s key climate change committee is working on a carbon price of between $18 and $23 a tonne – a level that will deepen rifts with business groups demanding a starting price of no more than $10.

As Tony Abbott issued a call to arms yesterday to angry miners to reprise their successful campaign against the resource super-profits tax and fight the carbon tax, senior government sources confirmed that the price of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme would heavily influence the Australian starting price.

A carbon price set between $18 and $23 a tonne would collect between $8 billion and $10bn a year from big polluters [or big employers, exporters, contributors to the economy – Ed], of which more than half is expected to be distributed to households to compensate against higher prices.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has indicated that the carbon price would be “well south” of $40 a tonne – a level initially endorsed by the Greens – when it is introduced on July 1 next year.

The Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have recommended the carbon tax start at $10 a tonne, while the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is flatly opposed to the carbon pricing regime.

The Greens have indicated they could accept a lower price than $40 if it were buttressed by the prospect of deeper emissions cuts, accommodated by a rising carbon price. (source)

I think we all know where the tax will go (up) and where the compensation will go (down).

Garnaut report "an assault on democracy"


Undemocratic

So says Tony Abbott. I think he may be right, since giving the power to levy taxes or change tax rates to an unelected body sounds pretty dangerous to me:

TONY Abbott has rejected the latest climate change report from economist Ross Garnaut as an assault on democracy, warning that it proposes to give a committee of unelected appointees the power to set tax rates.

“There is a developing democratic deficit here,” he said. “First of all the Prime Minister wasn’t upfront with the Australian public before the election. Now the idea that taxes in this country should effectively be set by people who are outside the parliament, and who are not accountable to the people, I think, is just odd.

“This just goes to show how out of control the government is on this whole climate change question.”

Later, the Opposition Leader continued his attack in question time, noting that the report said: “Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price”.

“So how can (the Prime Minister) continue to maintain that her tax only makes big polluters pay?” Mr Abbott asked parliament.

“Who pays? Big polluters or households? The truth is: households.” (source)