The climate’s changing
|
In May last year Possum Comitatus featured the annual Lowy Poll. The poll set of global warming questions the Lowy Institute asked — and in some instances, has asked over several years — was most illuminating in terms of tracking public opinion on this issue over the past five years. Lowy asked the following question four times in five years:
Take a look at how the opinion has shifted. This graph dovetails nicely with today’s set of Essential questions. In relation to the Opposition’s line on the government’s “backflip” on a promise Prime Minister Gillard made before the 2010 election not to introduce a carbon tax in the next term of parliament, respondents were given a set of statements and asked which was closest to their view. Fifty nine per cent of respondents picked this line:
The climate’s changing rapidly. And we’re not talking about cO2 levels. |
|
|
|
13 Comments
This is so depressing and totally the opposite of what the latest (2010) science is telling us, again and again.
Enlightenment in reverse.
wonder what the polling was in tasmania ( would benefit on balance with a bit of warming) and conversely in north qld.
The power of the press and the gutlessness of the ALP, and the ABC. Well done Rupert, well done coal billionaires, well done, I am sure that your money will protect you from the consequences of your actions, not so sure about my grandchildren though.
Michael - I think you have been sniffing too many carbon emissions.
Even if you assume everything that the church of global warming is preaching is true, removal of total carbon emissions from Australia would have no measurable effect on global Co2 levels.
Your religious beliefs will make no difference to your grandchildren… unless you reduce their inheritenace by donating to j-U-LIAR’s carbon tax.
I’m alright Jack and the grand children can take care of all our stuff ups, eh?
They are probably much smarter than their elders,and that’s not too hard.
So “the climate is changing rapidly”. Can you offer something better than the ipse dixit of second or third hand authority for offering such opinions, or can you justify it by some careful reasoning and statement of unassailable facts? Presumably you have no scientific qualifications???
Changing rapidly: compared to what and when? The flood in Brisbane in 1893 perhaps? The last few hundred years of Indian famines? Maybe you are harking back to those days in the 50s when many simple people blamed the nuclear tests for everything they didn’t like about the climate or weather. Does the Great Pacific Climate Shift of the late 70s count as a period of rapidly changing climate? If so how does it compare with the present?
It is hard enough to get anyone to take Crikey seriously. Why make it worse with pious cr*p?
Fitz - they meant the political/social climate. Play on words… you know?
@ MLF
You’re right - at least I think so. I read it first as saying “we, Australians are not even talking about CO2 levels when despite the fact that the climate is changing rapidly”. I wasn’t pointed in the alternative direction when I saw the heading “Crikey says: the climate’s changing” which, anyway, fitted my preconception of Crikey journalists’ views.
So, I concede a nice element of elegance in the Crikey ed.
Joe Hockey, Q&A, just said Labor and Coalition have agreement on human impact on climate change and on a 5% reduction by 2020 target, what they don’t agree on is the tax. He said Copenhagen changed everything. It’s refreshing to hear Coalition discussing climate change at all.
Kate Ellis then piped up and started name calling. Right before she blasted Hockey for the party dumping Turnbull over climate change. Pot, kettle, anyone? Very ineffective.
And, is it just me or do ALL Labor MPs now talk like Julia Gillard? I mean, is she giving lessons or something? Swan, Ellis, Shorten. Close your eyes and listen. Its her.
“The climate’s changing rapidly. And we’re not talking about cO2 levels.”
Oh yes we are.
How often do I have to say it? Climate millenarianism has been declining for 5 years, as your own graph shows.
This is now having political consequences.
Progressive politics are being sacrificed on the altar of the climate cult.
Crikey is assisting. Authoritarian, anti-intellectual, repressive. And self-defeating.
OK I’ve read Frank’s comment three times and still don’t understand it. Maybe I shouldn’t believe in climate change.
There are two groups here: 90% of smart people believe in climate change but 100% of not-so-smart people don’t.
@ Fitz - typical of the ignorant - read the headline and not the article - and allow that to “inform” your opinion.
Sadly too many people only read headlines and listen to soundbites, rather than learning to real facts of issues.
@ Dream Brother
To capture your highly imitable style: Typical of the ill-educated of meagre intelligence, say with a pass Arts degree but very satisfied to blow hard in the company they keep - not read what you are commenting on at all, or if read, not understood, or worse, wilfully mispresented.
As I made clear I had read the article, the whole point being whether I had misinterpreted the last paragraph as I probably did, and quickly admitted.
So, where’s your acknowledgement of error? And what’s your excuse?