COP21: Public support for tough climate deal ‘declines’ 

Posted: November 27, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate
Tags:

But not the end he was thinking of ? [credit: wizbangblog.com]

But not the end he was thinking of ? [credit: wizbangblog.com]


Are prophets of climate doom going out of fashion? The BBC fears so.

Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries. Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action. The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.


The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

Full report: COP21: Public support for tough climate deal ‘declines’ – BBC News

Time for climate reality to make its comeback.

Comments
  1. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Australia’s premier scientific body and hotbed of climate alarmism, the CSIRO, conducted a similar study with similar results, concluding that global warming ‘believers’ are now in the minority.
    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/csiro-most-australians-are-now-global-warming-sceptics/

    A recent American study also reflected the same majority shift toward climate scepticism.

    Fascinating and heartening results considering the bombardment of largely uncontested climate alarmism and breathtaking propaganda that has been hammered out across the mainstream media for years.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Al Gore’s shadow is in the wrong place. Can’t he get anything right😉

  3. Pointman says:

    I really don’t believe just under half viewed global warming as “very serious”. It’s a passé issue to the average person nowadays.

    “The bottom line is electorates haven’t given a flying fart about their emissions for years, methane or otherwise, and every politician worth his salt knows that.”

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/cop21-doing-the-the-climate-can-can-in-paris/

    Pointman

  4. markstoval says:

    If the public had ever been asked by a well designed poll they would have overwhelmingly rejected present action on climate. If you tell a person that there is a theory that the earth might warm a bit (mainly at night and towards the poles) and to stop it we need to destroy the western industrial society I doubt they would have ever been on board with any international agreements on emissions control.

    And if you tell them that the government agencies have to “adjust the numbers” or “cook the books” to make it look like there is any warming, then I doubt you could get even a few percent to agree to emissions control.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Climatism: “the bombardment of largely uncontested climate alarmism”

    It’s contested vigorously, but the mainstream media refuses to do its job and report that fact. The BBC is particularly egregious, with its officially enshrined policy of not giving balance to its output of alarmism.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Only 52% support in the UK, down from 62% in 2009 according to the BBC poll.

    So the effect of years of BBC climate alarmist propaganda is that half the UK public isn’t interested and that proportion is on the rise. Getting the message on fairness and balance yet Beeb?

    BBC: ‘Our correspondent Matthew Price will answer a selection of your questions in Vanuatu, South Pacific on Tuesday 1 December and then Texas, USA on Friday 4 December.’

    How’s that for a ‘carbon footprint’? Don’t do as we do, do as we say😀

  7. Password protected says:

    Canada is one of the countries in the support category….how embarrassing.

  8. Don Keiller says:

    Well ain’t that a shame?
    And after all the effort the BBC has put into trying to brainwash the Public.
    Still only Guardian readers on-message.

  9. Val says:

    If the Russians increasingly favor leadership, I doubt it’s in support of the IPCC.

  10. Stephen Richards says:

    And that is from a ‘well’ selected audience, no doubt.

  11. gallopingcamel says:

    Pointman, November 27, 2015 at 10:45 am

    “The bottom line is electorates haven’t given a flying fart about their emissions for years, methane or otherwise, and every politician worth his salt knows that.”

    I was born in the UK and visit every five years. I dread these visits as it depresses me to see how a once great nation continues to decline beyond my imagination.

    Trying to see the funny side of all this I noted a sign when I drove into London:
    YOU ARE NOW ENTERING A LOW EMISSIONS AREA

    I guess that means no more farting.

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    I am receiving climate propaganda from edie.net. This appears to be a well funded website that involves the left wing Grauniad.

    In spite of multiple daily postings by professional journalists, the general public is not engaged. I remain one of the top commentators. At present I am getting almost no opposition but if that should change I would appreciate the support of Tallbloke’s army.

  13. M Simon says:

    There is another branch of government science that is falling out of favor (hi Pointman). Reefer Madness. Same deal. Only studies favoring the government position were funded. The discovery of endocannabinoids pretty much killed all that old “science”. Look up “Heath monkey asphyxiation study” for one of the studies from the bad old days. That was the template for AGW “science”.

    A possible candidate for the killer of AGW:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-21-the-mysterious-notch-in-the-sun-earth-relationship-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/

    David Evan’s notch delay theory. He is running a new series on that. BTW he explains why there is no delay in the conventional electrical theory sense. He explains at the link that what ever is making the FFT of temperature have a notch at the 11 year mark (1/2 solar cycle) has to be coincident.

    TSI is not a valid metric. You have to look at the bands to figure out what is going on. UV, SWIR, LWIR, Visible, Solar “wind”. etc.

  14. M Simon says:

    gallopingcamel says:
    November 28, 2015 at 8:18 am

    For those needing a link to edie.net –>

    http://www.edie.net/

  15. M Simon says:

    Side note: I was a sceptic when it came to cannabis science. When people brought up the Heath monkey studies (cannabis kills) I said, “Show me the bodies” The same for cannabis causes cancer, “Show me the bodies”. “Where are the cancer wards full of cannabis smokers?” We now know from anecdotes that cannabis is a likely cure for cancer. Why only anecdotes? Because human trials are illegal. Very clever that.

    And that is the same for all science (and engineering). The models mean nothing if they are not in accord wit the evidence. And even then they may get it “right” by happenstance. Meaning they have no predictive value.

    I would have much more faith in untuned models that were within 5% of reality than tuned models that were within 1%.

  16. Bob Weber says:

    It is TSI – not that spectral variation isn’t important, M Simon.

    The only people who care about COP21 are those making a living off of the AGW charade and their willing (and the unwillingly) manipulated dupes.

  17. M Simon says:

    Bob Weber,

    David Evans makes a good case that albedo is the more important variable (at least short term). He also makes the point that where and how much energy is absorbed (bands) makes more sense than just looking at TSI. Evans can probably explain the Maunder minimum by looking and how the various bands affect the system. TSI cannot explain the Maunder Minimum (ask Leif).

    If Evans can explain the Maunder minimum and current climate “science” cannot – that is a very big hole in CO2 causes AGW.

    Here is David’s recent take on albedo (Oct. 2015)
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-10-whatever-controls-clouds-controls-the-climate/

    TSI is constant (enough). The distribution of the energy in various bands is not constant. That is a clue.

  18. oldbrew says:

    ‘David Evans makes a good case that albedo is the more important variable (at least short term).’

    That still leaves the question of what factors are making the albedo vary.

  19. Bob Weber says:

    You, David Evans, LS, WE, and whole host of other people have apparently not looked close enough, nor recognized that “feedback” never adds energy to the system, which is a requirement for temperatures to go up (even slightly) for years on end.

    Your op amp feedback in your integrated circuit audio power amplifier cannot produce more output power than the power supply delivers. Feedback doesn’t add energy. Only the sun’s energy (our power supply) supply level matters over time. A real feedback in this situation would mean some thing(s) on Earth would have an effect on the sun’s output – obviously ridiculous.

    Albedo is a function of TSI, but it’s not THE answer. Albedo is considered THE answer by some as it represents the modulation of solar radiation, and is thought to be a “negative” feedback. What the above mentioned peeps have never shown is the slightest comprehension that clouds via evaporation are a distinct function of TSI too.

    All it takes is some observations of the Earths’ IR over time, such as the images below, as I’ve been doing every day for two years, along with daily solar activity, and you’ll start to appreciate short-term affect TSI has on SST-OHC:

    David Evans so far has been pretty coy about explaining his mechanism(s), but I’m patient.

    His method yields virtually the same result as my solar flux accumulation supersensitivity model, ie fairly rapid cooling ahead within two years from lower TSI – I just want to know how and why that happens to work out the same for both of us.

    By the way, I first determined the F10.7cm solar flux warming/cooling threshold of 120 sfu/day in July of 2014, and also the implications of that BEFORE Dr. Evans even published his first notch-delay article last year. Since then I’ve been testing my results and not talking about it so much.

    Those who have pitched a lower flux threshold such as at 100 sfu, have never as far as I can see shown any signs of testing their threshold value, as I have done.

    The sun caused global warming.

    Sunspot activity was 65% higher for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt.

    TSI, which tracks w/sunspot number, was higher during the modern maximum period:

    The v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2.

    It really is that simple. Once the rest of the world learns this, public support for climateering (climate racketeering) will turn against the warmists bigtime.

  20. Bob Weber says:

    The last Weather Channel Pacific-Global satellite image that I linked to above shows heavy clouds over the southern ocean area that weren’t so prevalent earlier on, that developed recently after TSI has increased to recent relatively high ‘warming’ levels (above about 1361.3 W/m^2, the statistical equivalent to 120 sfu in F10.7cm flux):

  21. M Simon says:

    Internal feedback doesn’t change the energy of a system. However, changes in albedo will change the internal energy of the system.

  22. Bob Weber says:

    Where is the evidence that albedo changed in the necessary direction and for sufficient time to warm SSTs since 1976? From 1976 forward, where is the evidence there was really less overall cloud cover allowing for higher insolation?

    Insolation would’ve needed to go up for the ocean to heat up at depth, a necessary precondition for sea surface warming, so either that means less cloud cover or more solar energy after 1976.

    If there were fewer clouds, there’d be less precipitation. Was there less? Do not all of the talked about extreme events of the 80’s-’06, from hurricanes, floods, hail, tornadoes have one thing in common? Water. More precipitation.

    If there was more precipitation from more clouds then albedo didn’t do the trick to add the warming needed to drive evaporation, because more clouds means less insolation, less solar warming.

    It’s like the chicken or the egg, what came first, the photons (heat) or the clouds?

    The sun became active as time went on, so where did that extra energy go? Where did those extra photons go? Follow the photons. Where do come from, where do they go? Into the ocean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s