First, I'll fess up. My headline is also spin. The poll didn't ask people if they believe in anthropogenic climate change. It asked if
Climate change is happening . . .
... and is now established as largely man-made 41%
... but not yet proven to be largely man-made 32%
... but it is not environmentalist propaganda that is man-made [sic - I presume this wasn't the question that they really asked] 8%
... Climate change is not happening 15%
But, if my headline is spin, theirs is a downright lie, and here's why:
In their report, they used the phrase "established as a scientific fact". But, what they didn't ask is "what do you believe". So, lets take a look at the more detailed report [pdf], and see what people really said.
First, 83% agreed that climate change is happening ("Earth's climate is changing and climate change taking place?" [sic]). Only 2% had no view.
Second, 80% (96% of 83%) agree that climate change is a serious problem. Now, at this point, the question should not be "Who's fault is it?", but "What can we do about it?". However, I'll grant that the answer to the first question has some bearing on the latter. If it's our fault (in a causal rather than moral sense), then maybe we can tackle the problem by stopping doing the wrong thing. If it's not our fault, then we have to start doing something new. Either way, if 80% of people agree that it's a serious problem, then surely that should be the support that the UK government requires in December.
The Times goes on to say "The high level of scepticism underlines the difficulty the Government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes". But that's also rubbish, as their survey demonstrates. Most people (over 50%) surveyed were in favour of higher taxes to combat climate change: specifically with respect to air travel (57%) and gas guzzlers (68%). Oh, and 87% are in favour of stricter building regulations - something that I'm sure the Times would be happy to describe as a "stealth tax", if (a) they'd thought of it, and (b) it weren't so popular!
And this is where we come to the lie. Remember, they said that most people thing Global Warming is not our fault. Presumably, in "most" they're including all those who say it is "not yet proven", but are these really people who say it's definitely "not our fault"? They can't be - not if they also think that taxing air travel or gas guzzlers is going to help. At best, you can characterise this group as "undecided", but my bet is that it consists of some "believers", some "disbelievers" and all the "undecideds". Frankly, it's a poor question.
Note, the poll shows that support for climate taxes is increasing - though the Times shows it's innumeracy here by somehow claiming that more people oppose increasing the cost of motoring, despite showing that men and women are separately less likely to oppose this measure. As are all age groups, and supporters of all parties (assuming "p8" is a typo for "-8").
This bears repeating: the Times are claiming that most people think that climate change is not caused by humans, while at the same time reporting that most people are happy to see new taxes to stop humans causing climate change!
Obviously your assesment is a pack of lies & misinformation. However simnce you LDs believe in censoring any truth youn find inconvenient....
Sadly, I'm afraid I don't believe that (this time) The Times has been inaccurate or misleading in its reporting of the poll - the raw figures support their headline. I think you are falling into the trap of reinterpreting them and posing alternative questions along the way.
It's quite normal in polls of this type for people to hold views that seem to be contradictory (scepticism and support for some green taxes). But not all green taxes and climate change measures with implications for the consumer were tested in this survey. I think the top line findings suggest that it will be harder for any govt to "sell" green taxes etc., especially as power bills rise. It would be useful to test how much people might be prepared to pay, under each type of green measure (e.g., renewables obligation, feed in tariff, etc.)
Oh, just in case you are thinking of responding with a blizzard of names like climate change denier, or a cascade of polling numbers, can you please look at this first.
But the times didn't ask "do you believe", they asked "is it proven". I think. Actually, we don't know since they haven't accurately reported the questions that were asked. At least, I hope not. The questions in the graphic were abysmally illiterate.
I really do think there are plenty of people who don't think "it's proven", but do think "it's likely". Any scientist applying the scientific definition of proof, for example.
Sure, I don't think ALL of the "unproven" lot agree with me, but I don't see any reason to think that less than a third do. And, note that only 9% said it's definitely not human induced.
@neil craig... "Censoring". Hardly. I'm pointing people to the article. That's the opposite of censoring, isn't it?
I'm also asking them to think critically about the claims and the numbers they're based on.
I said that as a general rule "LibDems" censor & cannot be trusted to engage in reasonable discussion. That cannot be honestly disputed.
So, it was a complete non-sequitor then? Your second sentence wasn't a comment on my blog post at all?
In fact, the term "Liberal" implies that we advocate free speech. Free speech isn't a legal right in this country. Labour have banned much free speech in the guise of protecting other rights, and Tory libel laws leave this country with perhaps the least free speech in the "free world". We've opposed both.
For example, we've recently campaigned against those who'd sue scientists (simply for doing science) under libel laws.
Post a Comment