Lots of Brits doubting cause of Climate Change

[elbows]

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions


I am not surprised to be honest. I think certain sections of the media went overboard, and there has been plenty of skepticism from people I work with since day one. Plenty of people commenting on the weather going weird, but lots of fatalism and no desire for radical lifestyle changes.

Mind you Ive always expected that people will be forced to change their behaviour against their will, and as this is political disaster, it would be most likely to happen as part of an energy crisis than a green revolution.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, the media and PR have a nice relationship. Lazy journalists get stories spoon-fed to them by industry-friendly (aka professionally dishonest) PR people all too often. Just look at the grievously misleading way that Lord May's lecture was reported (see posts in the other thread)

Other journalists sensationalise what the scientists are saying, or even worse, sensationalise what the contrarians are saying (Channel 4, I'm looking at you here) because it makes for more exciting headlines and they don't care that it makes the industry PR people's job of doing a smear-job on science which is financially inconvenient for their clients easier when journalists exaggerate or misrepresent the state of climate science as long as the result is a 'good story'.

Very few journalists in the mainstream media are both capable and motivated to report science straight so it's no surprise that the public is confused.

Outside of publications like New Scientist, what proportion of journalists have science degrees or at least enough of a science background to form an independent view of what the peer-reviewed research is saying I wonder?

 

[elbows]

When I saw Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton looking uneasy trying to sell climate change to the masses during Live Earth, hope faded within me that it was going to be handled properly!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Perhaps they should have got Jeremy Clarkson instead ... he's a famous media presenter too.

 

[soulman]

I think a lot of people are in denial. Their material standard of living, until recently, has been rising. People have got used to cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap holidays and having a car. They've been prepared to go into debt for some of these things because that's been presented as the way to live.

The idea that it could all turn to shit isn't something they want to think about too much. Although most people I know do have a bad feeling about how things are going if you ask them...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Or maybe David Bellamy. He's presented TV programmes about nature and he has a beard.

 

[DotCommunist]

Well, the media and PR have a nice relationship. Lazy journalists get stories spoon-fed to them by industry-friendly (aka professionally dishonest) PR people all too often. Just look at the grievously misleading way that Lord May's lecture was reported (see posts in the other thread)

Other journalists sensationalise what the scientists are saying, or even worse, sensationalise what the contrarians are saying (Channel 4, I'm looking at you here) because it makes for more exciting headlines and they don't care that it makes the industry PR people's job of misrepresenting science which is financially inconvenient for their clients easier when they exaggerate or misrepresent the state of climate science as long as the result is a 'good story'. Very few journalists in the mainstream media report things straight so it's no surprise that the public is confused.

Outside of publications like New Scientist, what proportion of journalists have science degrees or at least enough of a science background to form an independent view of what the peer-reviewed research is saying I wonder?

None.

I was going to simply do

^^^^^
this

but you made the wider point about media reporting of science. B. Goldacre ftw

 

[EddyBlack]

This is why I am fatalistic about climate change. Tens of thousands of people starve to death every day. There are all sorts of crises going on and not much ever gets done, nor is there the widespread will to do it. I don't see why climate change should be the big major obsession and focus of political frustration.

Fossil fuels are going to run out this century anyway aren't they, so are we all going to die before then or what? Look at Burma, a man made catastrophe insofar as the Junta's actions. How many hundred thousands perished? Darfur? Rwanda? The actual powerbrokers couldn't give a shit. The world is a horrible place, and those that could easily do something about it do not. It is just not in their ambitions and never will be.

Peoples panic about climate change seems to me to be motivated by a completely natural desire for self-preservation, not for the sake of the Bangladeshis or whoever. The only way to get them to change their lifestyles therefore would be to scare them into it, which as you say hasn't worked so far. Also, as a non-scientist, how am I supposed to grasp the urgency, i.e. varying predictions and future models, combined with the kinds of debates about the veracity of man made global warming you see even amongst the scientifically minded in this very forum? It would take huge efforts of political and public will across the globe to affect lifestyle change. That change just isn't going to happen to the extent needed.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If you want to know where the politicians heads are really at on this stuff, you could do worse than read the odious Stern Review commissioned by Gordon Brown back when he was Chancellor.

Quick summary of the Stern Review ...

Yep, the scientists are right, but we can't prevent climate change without giving up capitalism as we know and enjoy it so take no notice of their whining about carbon emissions except insofar as it lets us bring in some new 'guilt taxes' to provide useful revenue. We're a relatively rich and technically capable society, so we can mitigate the effects. After all, much of Holland started out mostly as sea-bed, so we'll be fine short term.

Meanwhile, the people who are really going to get fucked are going to be in the third world. So we should increase defence spending to deal with any petulant violence that may occur on their part as a result of hundreds of millions of people becoming refugees, because some of it will certainly be bad for business and we should also work with institutions like the World Bank to force the people affected to buy climate change insurance, which will be very profitable for the City and will put them further into debt thereby enhancing our influence of them in favour of business interests.

 

[jcsd]

Well, the media and PR have a nice relationship. Lazy journalists get stories spoon-fed to them by industry-friendly (aka professionally dishonest) PR people all too often. Just look at the grievously misleading way that Lord May's lecture was reported (see posts in the other thread)

Other journalists sensationalise what the scientists are saying, or even worse, sensationalise what the contrarians are saying (Channel 4, I'm looking at you here) because it makes for more exciting headlines and they don't care that it makes the industry PR people's job of doing a smear-job on science which is financially inconvenient for their clients easier when journalists exaggerate or misrepresent the state of climate science as long as the result is a 'good story'.

Very few journalists in the mainstream media are both capable and motivated to report science straight so it's no surprise that the public is confused.

Outside of publications like New Scientist, what proportion of journalists have science degrees or at least enough of a science background to form an independent view of what the peer-reviewed research is saying I wonder?

Let's be honest, most journalists are only interested in furthering their own careers. It's the same with politicans and lawyers; media polics and law are all difficult careers to get into and advance in so they tend to service self-serving attitudes.

I would've thought that most journalists in the new scientists have BSc's in science related subjects, but I have some science trainign myself and I know from experince that even in the cover stories often the authors display a complete lack of knowledge on the subject that they're writing on.

 

[free spirit]

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

fucks sake... unless I'm missing something here, that's not actually what the poll says at all.

what it says it that 60% of them agreed with the statement "'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change'"

40% of them agreed with the statement 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'

meanwhile 75% of them said they were 'concerned about climate change'


to me this looks like very shoddy reporting of some very shoddy research. I'd even agree with the 2nd statement in that I "sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say" all depends which people we're talking about saying what exactly, and there's a possibility even within the IPCC figures that things won't be as bad as even the best case scenario they predict... so even the IPCC say that it might not be as bad as they predict.

as for the 60% statement, well that all depends on your definition of many. personally I'd put it down as a few / some, but I can well understand that the public might class it as many scientists questioning whether humans are contributing to climate change because thats the way that the media makes it look when they report on the media savvy sceptics like lawson, bellamy etc.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

When 60% say that "'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change'" it just goes to show how effective PR is.

 

[danny la rouge]

'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,'

Indeed. Many people have said to me (and I'm sure others have had similar conversations) things along the lines of:

- there is certainly climate change, but the climate has always changed: this used to be a tropical rain forest, that's why there are coalfields here!

- it seems likely that human activity is having some effect, but how do we know it is the main cause? The climate has changed in the past without our help. So how much is it us and how much would it happen anyway? Is it 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, 90/10? What?

- if we don't really know to what extent our actions are responsible, how can we know what effect changing our habits will have?

And similar comments along those lines.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If I recall right, the IPCC says 90/10. That people are unclear about that says a lot for the effectiveness of industry funded PR efforts.

 

[free spirit]

Indeed. Many people have said to me (and I'm sure others have had similar conversations) things along the lines of:

- there is certainly climate change, but the climate has always changed: this used to be a tropical rain forest, that's why there are coalfields here!

- it seems likely that human activity is having some effect, but how do we know it is the main cause? The climate has changed in the past without our help. So how much is it us and how much would it happen anyway? Is it 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, 90/10? What?

- if we don't really know to what extent our actions are responsible, how can we know what effect changing our habits will have?

And similar comments along those lines.

that channel 4 program really has a lot to answer for IMO, the number of people I heard pretty much parroting the lines from the programme in the weeks after it really worried me. Essentially it just muddied the waters and confused people.

I really do think that the non sceptic climate scientists really need to up their game on the pr front - and at the very least they need to open up their research papers to be freely available online so that those who're interested can actually view them and maybe google would stop returning so many sceptics websites on its front pages. Essentially the sceptics have turned not being able to get their work published properly into an advantage in winning the public debate as they're just publishing online direct to the public.

 

[danny la rouge]

If I recall right, the IPCC says 90/10. That people are unclear about that says a lot for the effectiveness of industry funded PR efforts.

Indeed.

What some people are also suspicious about is the way it seems to be put across that it is the responsibility of individuals to make the most sacrifices, although domestic energy use accounts for only 30% of energy demand in the UK. If all the reductions have to come from that 30%, that won't be achievable. The multiplier effect will up the target considerably.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Indeed.

What some people are also suspicious about is the way it seems to be put across that it is the responsibility of individuals to make the most sacrifices, although domestic energy use accounts for only 30% of energy demand in the UK. If all the reductions have to come from that 30%, that won't be achievable. The multiplier effect will up the target considerably.

Sure, but that's a side-effect of cynical politicians exploiting 'climate guilt' to raise revenue and has no bearing whatsoever on whether the science is true or not, although clearly resentment about it can be exploited by the industry PR/disinformation crowd.

 

[danny la rouge]

cynical politicians exploiting 'climate guilt' to raise revenue and has no bearing whatsoever on whether the science is true or not

Absolutely, but it has considerable bearing on public perception of whether the science is true or not. Which is what is being discussed here.

The public aren't just doubting the science for the hell of it. Mistrust of politicians and their messages is behind a lot of that doubt.

 

[merlin wood]

Given that scaring people about global warming doesn't work that well, I'd say there could be more effective promotion of the benefits of a more evironmentally friendly lifestyle. The healthiness of minimising car use and reduction of ever spiralling home fuel bills by more effective insulation, for example

 

[elbows]

Given that scaring people about global warming doesn't work that well, I'd say there could be more effective promotion of the benefits of a more evironmentally friendly lifestyle.

Mmm yes I am predicting that the health dangers of some of the things that are currently deemed 'safe' will be revealed in the years ahead.

If we had all given up smoking then we could move on to look at what other causes of lung cancer are, for example.

The health risks of flying should be dwelt on.

Perhaps even electricity-leukemia links will get looked at again.

 

[xes]

We're not to blame for it,I used to think that we were,but not any more. Just think of all the volcanos errupting right now. There's probably over 10 on the go at this second. That Chilean one has been going for about a month non stop. That is pumping more gas and crap in the air than we have in our entire industrail age.
volcanoy type page http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html

Couple that with the fact that nearly ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up,it looks like it is something completly natural after all.

 

[Signal 11]

^ Both common misconceptions.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

 

[Mation]

We're not to blame for it,I used to think that we were,but not any more. Just think of all the volcanos errupting right now. There's probably over 10 on the go at this second. That Chilean one has been going for about a month non stop. That is pumping more gas and crap in the air than we have in our entire industrail age.
volcanoy type page http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html

Couple that with the fact that nearly ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up,it looks like it is something completly natural after all.

unfortunately for your thesis, volcanic eruptions release aerosols into the atmosphere and cause global cooling not warming.

 

[elbows]

Mmm yes I am predicting that the health dangers of some of the things that are currently deemed 'safe' will be revealed in the years ahead.

Actually thinking about it further, Im not so sure. If people were told that their cars were killing us, and the solution was not so simple like in the past switching from leaded to unleaded petrol, Im not sure enough people would volunteer to give up their cars.

Also a lot of people seem aware of mobile phone concerns, especially for children, yet their children still end up with mobiles because 'its the norm these days.' and other tangiable benefits outweight perceived risks.

 

[spacemonkey]

We're not to blame for it,I used to think that we were,but not any more. Just think of all the volcanos errupting right now. There's probably over 10 on the go at this second. That Chilean one has been going for about a month non stop. That is pumping more gas and crap in the air than we have in our entire industrail age.
volcanoy type page http://www.volcanolive.com/news.html

Couple that with the fact that nearly ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up,it looks like it is something completly natural after all.

Nice try. But you get a big red FAIL stamp.