Google Survey: The World Is Bored About Climate Change 

Posted: December 23, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, IPCC, media, Politics
Tags: ,

Credit: BBC

Media efforts to bludgeon the public into believing the human-caused warming claims of the IPCC have largely failed. The ever-increasing alarm that is put forward is surely a response to the lack of success in scaring people, rather than any reflection of actual facts on the ground (or in the air). In short, media hype has led to climate fatigue.

Public interest in “climate change” peaked in March 2007 as Al Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth” basked in the glow of an Academy Award win, but faded away ever since, The GWPF reports.

As the COP24 conference on climate change wrapped up last week in Poland without any major developments, downward-trending levels of interest in the subject have raised the question of whether the public and media have become weary of discussing it.

The timeline below [see link] shows the average percentage of airtime (as measured in 15-second intervals) on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, combined by year, from June 2009 to present that mentioned either “climate change” or “global warming” (using data from the GDELT Project’s processing of the Internet Archive’s Television News Archive).

The immense media coverage of the 2009 Copenhagen conference is starkly clear, as is the steady increase in coverage over President Obama’s fourth through seventh years in office, culminating in the 2015 Paris accord.

President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement last year brought the fourth highest television coverage of the past decade. In contrast, the lack of major developments this year led to 2018 having the second lowest coverage.

Continued here.

  1. Bill In Oz says:

    Only in the USA.Which is not the world though many Americans do unconsciously assume the two are the same. Here in Oz it is the hot button issue. along with power costs.

  2. Jim says:

    Only in the USA? Humm? Inn the USA, we only hear the world is dying, and only man is causing it. We don’t get the other arguements, the ipcc error margins, equal to the program, the other factors, like more accurate measurements, changing locations of machines that measure the inputs, changed data, you know, all the correction factors. That disprove it is all man caused, or why global warming is bad. Pollution is bad, but global warming? Fewer people die of global warming. More people are fed with global warming, that’s bad? I believe the priority is wrong, we have to be on the lookout for cooling, that’s a problem. Ice means no food. Even the chineese chicken, and the princton burger need plant stuff to be produced.

  3. ivan says:

    I think they have now got to the third stage of the saying ‘you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’ and there are going to be a lot of angry people when they realise they have been taken for fools. It will not be pleasant for the green members of the UN Church of Climatology.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Sorry BBC. The world isn’t interested in the West’s groupthink obsession with global warming
    — Christopher Booker 23 DECEMBER 2018

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    the massive amount of money wasted by the quangos and their pimps in the media and the Imams of the Climate Caliphate in academia is going to be talked about as more eye popping than the Piltdown Man scam once the public FINALLY realizes the emperor has no clothes.

    In the meantime, just sit back and make fun of the Warmists on the web. Just post, “CO2 is plant food,” and stand back. ha ha ha. To keep it going, periodically toss in references to Scafetta, John Coleman, and Nikolov and Zeller.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Yet more climate lunacy – not blocked by the US.

    The UN Loss and Damage Scam Made Major Progess at Katowice without US Opposition
    Alan Carlin | December 22, 2018

    Under the new rules approved at COP 24 the less developed countries will be allowed to build their fantasy case for compensation in detail. It was agreed that each member nation would prepare as part of its “Transparency Framework” detailed loss and damage calculations based on adverse weather events during the year. The obvious purpose of these calculations is to claim compensation from the developed countries for these losses and damages.

  7. ivan says:

    oldbrew, I think the answer to that one is simple, ‘prove it’.

    Any country that tries to say they have been damaged by global warming should need to prove their claim with actual figures or be laughed out of court. It will show up the scam for what it is – a scam, and end up with more people realising they have been taken for fools.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Alternative solar cycle 25 theory/prediction…
    – – –

    Prediction of Solar Cycle 25 — Leif Svalgaard

    Page 18: SC25 will be somewhere between SC24 and SC20,
    provided the Polar Field Precursor Relationship holds.

    Click to access Prediction-of-SC25.pdf

  9. Brett Keane says:

    Good, we shall see who is best: Leif or Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist? I would expect a rational appraisal by Leif, as a real Scientist. Once the data is in. Brett

  10. oldbrew says:

    There have been about 10% fewer ‘spotless’ days this year than in 2008 or 2009 (i.e. the last solar cycle minimum).

  11. hunter says:

    So the latest COP is transparently setting up the stage for the lynching of the West. Indpite of the misplaced optimism that nothing was done, much damage was in fact done.
    This COP is terrible news for all except the climate extremists..
    For the 3rd world, yet another rationale to support kleptocracy.
    For the West, yet another step towards the gallows of crippling taxes- or worse- to sustain the climate consensus parasites.
    For the people of the world, yet more Trillions in opportunity costs.
    The quality of the “transparent claims” was summed up best in all of its dangerous madness by Monty Python.

    The UN climate regime is broken and dangerous. End it now.
    Or it will end us.

  12. Gamecock says:

    The flow of “given global warming, . . .” papers has not subsided.

    ‘Now, a new global study projects that in coming decades the effects of high humidity will cause suffering for hundreds of millions of people.’ – DM

  13. dolphinwrite says:

    Look, they got Sandra Bullock to play in a movie in which her space vessel is bombarded by space debris. Can’t happen. I did the calculations regarding the amount of space surrounding the Earth upwards of so many miles to where she would have been. The chances of being hit were so small that there wasn’t really one. But the movie is setting up a new, uneducated society to grow up believing we can pollute space. Why? There’s an agenda. And we can really teach the kids about the real facts. Why? There’s an agenda. If you think long and hard about this, you’ll come to understand.