<< MARXIST-GREENS CRUMBLE ~ MAIN ~ TEXANS UNAMUSED >>
URGENT ACTION NOT TAKEN
“Most Australians alarmed at climate change,” claims the Age:
78% of Australians believe that ratifying Kyoto was just the start, and that urgent action is required to deal with climate change. Only 5% said urgent action was not required.
As usual, however, there is a telling difference between what people say and what people do:
Emissions from coal, gas and petroleum for the first quarter this year were 25.4 million tonnes, 0.3% up on last year … Petroleum emissions were up 4%, suggesting motorists were not deterred by rising petrol prices.
It also suggests that most Australians aren’t alarmed at climate change.
UPDATE. Paco: “‘Urgent action’ is for other people.” Seems so.
Typical poll worded to express a preconceived bias. “Only 5% said urgent action was not required.” What about the category of those say “no action is required”?
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2008 04 15 at 01:17 AM • permalinkDid they have anyone dressed as a drowning polar bear doing the survey?
How about a question like “Would you accept a drop in living standards and an effective 10-50% pay cut to pay for global warming mitigation expenses?”
I think the figures might even themselves out a little then.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 04 15 at 01:32 AM • permalink#2, exactly right. The amount of Australians taking up the ‘green power’ option is extremely low and completely contradicts the opinion poll results.
Similarly, green groups also like to claim 80-90% community support for a ban on plastic shopping bags, yet we still use 4 billion of them a year…
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 04 15 at 01:36 AM • permalinkThe Climate Institute who did the survey has no credibility. It isn’t really an institute but a lobbyist drumming up business for its members, who make their living out of climate change. It is a bit like the Real Estate Institute which will always tell the public that now is the time to buy and/or sell their homes.
The Climate Institute reveals its true role at its website:The Climate Institute has a five-year goal of raising public awareness and debate about the dangers to Australia of global warming and to motivate the country to take positive action.
11. Contrail
But the ABC gave their head about 4 minutes of time on the evening news to answer a bunch of softball questions.Surely they wouldnt compromise their integrity like that???
Sell the ABC
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 04 15 at 02:53 AM • permalink#11 egg It has the same degree of credibility as the Ponds Institute. However the Ponds Institute has the advantage of lots of attractive young women walking around carrying clipboards.
#14 Not surprised. Bet the ABC didn’t point out that the Climate Institute was a lobbyist. The hypocrisy is that the ABC and left throw around the word when they want to discredit anyone who opposes their position on. It is a standard left-wing insult, like racist and Nazi. Yet when presented with a real lobbyist who supports their position, nothing is said.
The soy latte drinking set who bleat on constantly about climate change keep jumping up and down insisting the government do something about it now. And that the money comes from the public who by-and-large earn less than them.
None of them practice what they preach, Cate Blanchett and others keep flying more in a year than I would in a lifetime. And let’s not forget good ol’ Dr Karl and his petrol guzzling Monaro that he wouldn’t even get rid of for the election.
#17 ... and the ABC prefixes the Australia Institute as “independent” despite the fact that ACT heavyweight Sharan Burrow is on the board. GetUp, too, is “independent” and it had union boss and now Labor MP Bill Shorten on its board.
Interesting, the Climate and Australian institutes have two common board members.
Is it my imagination, or has ABC news changed their way of presenting news?
First one was a clanger:
“Aborigines used for medical experiments in the 20’s and 30’s!”
..... “claimed an old woman who heard something half a century back from her uncle who… used to work as an orderly in a hospital”
There was another, but I’d tuned out by then.
I had a look at this study today.
Sorry, this post is a bit long but a number of things didn’t make the press and there’s plenty of spin in how they present the findings.
They present lots of the detailed breakdowns of data that are pro-greenhouse action case but present data selectively in other cases. For example, on page 8 they report that 70 per cent agree “A strong 2020 target to cut greenhouse emissions is the key test of our government’s commitment to tackling climate change” and that few people oppose Australia setting targets before the rest of the world. But they don’t give a figure for the latter or report a breakdown (how many were unsure or didn’t have an opinion? How many agreed strongly?)
Pages 8 and 9 also presented a distorted analysis of opinions on economic impacts. They report the 46% who say that addressing climate change “might hurt the economy and jobs” as being unsure about the effect. As the four choices were “Will definitely hurt the economy & jobs” (15%); “Might hurt the economy & jobs” (46%); “Would have no real effect on the economy & jobs” (18%); and “Would be good for the economy & jobs” (21%), it is fatuous to treat those answering “might hurt” as being unsure.
Faced with these choices, respondents might equally have thought it would be a negative but were unsure of the strength of the negative impact. Then the report further spins the responses by saying “The majority of the remaining population (39 per cent) believe that addressing climate change will have either a neutral or positive effect.” Why should these categories be lumped together?
While the report indicates that the majority report that something should be done about climate change, it’s not clear how real that commitment is. What seems clear is that people believe that strong action should be done by someone else. Fifty percent reckon that individuals (themselves) should make small changes but only 34% think individuals should make large changes. 46% think the government should make large changes and 38% think that the government should make very large changes.
So what does that mean? 84% think the government should make large or very large changes. What changes? Nearly any change brought in by the government would ultimately affect consumers through increased fuel and energy prices, so it really boils down to impacting on individuals. But maybe people take an Augustinian approach – Lord, make me green but not yet.
There’s a lot more dodgy presentation in this report but this post is long enough already.
Posted by procrustes on 2008 04 15 at 06:05 AM • permalink#19
ABC TV News?Aunty (RN, at least) appears to gone even more feral under the Rudder.
The sooner she outsources her News & Current Affairs, (e.g. via Sky News) the better.
Most News is just a local voiceover of News Pool feeds, anyway, to anyone in the know; we can do without the Leftist bent however, thanks
AuntyMr Scott, please?!!I thought these guys were after john connor?
Most well meaning but non questioning Australians I know will accept the common dogma on climate change.
But if Kevvie starts to hit their hip pocket in an alarming manner, then he will stir the ire of the tiger.
That’s me sitting back, cool wine in glass awaiting the very quick impasse. Tot siens Kevvie.
Well hell, I believe that ratifying Kyoto is just the start. Kyoto II is surely just around the corner. That’s my short version of Procrustes at #20. I just need a grant to expand it.
Posted by dean martin on 2008 04 15 at 07:11 AM • permalinkAgeism again.
#25 Climate Institute has credibility with the Age and Fairfax/ABC what else is needed.
Debate is useless they have won.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 15 at 07:50 AM • permalinkI have conducted a poll of about a thousand of my closest friends.
100% of them firmly believed that there is not the slightest chance that global warming will occur in the foreseeable future, nor is there anything we can do to stop it or make it happen.
However, about 2% of the respondents planned to cut back on their carbon dioxide emissions because “reduced pollution must be good for the environment”.
I’m still trying to work out why I keep the 20 dickheads on my closest friends list.I’ve been proselytizing amongst the locals in favor of universal free health care, and get pleased smiles until I hit them up for a contribution. Then the self-satisfied smiles turn upside down.
I tell them that a $4K contribution will buy someone else’s health care for a year, and who the hell did they think was going to pay, someone else?
I have zero contributions after hundred of tries. I don’t understand, and I may just give up. I thought the issue was settled!
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2008 04 15 at 09:31 AM • permalinkNobody gets penny out of me until they can give me a rational explanation of just how the climate is changing (warming or cooling, make up your mind), how this climate change is different from any in the past, and exactly how it will affect my life. A rational explanation, I said, not a “We’re all gonna diiiiiieee!” howl.
#19
I noticed in 1968. Have not watched since.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 15 at 10:21 AM • permalinkOne of the TV channels here was promo’ing yet another breathless climate change feature by one of their news shows yesterday, including a soundbite of a deeply concerned expert stating:
“What we’re doing right now constitutes the worst-case scenario.”
I had to restrain the urge to scream, “No, you eff’ing moron, the worst-case scenario would be everyone in the entire world polluting like China does right now or like Russia did 30 years ago!” at the television. Geez.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
The start of what?
Telling us it will cost working families more than a dollar a week per person to move towards our emission target? As some randy saint said, “Give me chastity lord, but not yet!”