Most Australians are skeptical: mankind is not main driver of the climate – ‘Despite the unending propaganda 60% of Australians are not convinced’
Most Australians are skeptical: mankind is not main driver of the climate
The IPCC has told us in letters of fire for twenty years that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. But despite the unending propaganda 60% of Australians are not convinced. The IPSOS polls have been running for years, and are unashamedly pro-IPCC in leaning, but despite that obvious bias, and loaded, ambiguous questions, most Australians don’t agree that it is mainly our fault. The climate is changing but it is mainly or partly natural. IPSOS gloss over that, but if humans are responsible for less than half of “climate change” that makes Direct Action twice as useless. The IPSOS Climate Change Report 2015 (Online poll, 1,063 people) Q3: Which best describes your opinion about the causes of climate change? Only 40% of Australians accept the IPCC position that mankind is the main cause of climate change (orange and red). | Click to enlarge. See p 5 of the report. Like nearly all polls, this one suffers from using the loaded and confounded term “climate change”. To the person filling out the form it could mean either “man-made global warming” or “the climate… changes“. What were those survey designers and journalists thinking? Not about accurate English, that’s […]Rating: 9.0/10 (4 votes cast)
— gReader Pro…
US Republicans vote to spend more on hard science, less on social-climatey type stuff
US Republicans vote to spend more on hard science, less on social-climatey type stuff
US Republicans have passed a bill through the House (but not the Senate yet) aiming to get back some control over the 7 billion dollar science budget. Previously the National Science Foundation (or NSF) had all the fun in dishing out the dough, but the Republicans have had enough. Their wish list includes cutting social sciences by 55%, climate science by 8%, and putting extra money into biology, computers, engineering and hard sciences. It can’t come soon enough. Critics are howling that this will politicize science, but it’s just the opposite. Science was already politicized, and thanks in no small part to the NSF itself. This would put control of the funding back slightly closer to the voters. The NSF is almost unaccountable to the taxpayer, and if the NSF had not wasted money on so many one-sided pointless extravaganza’s (like $5m for “climate games”) and tipped so much money into “behavioural” studies, the elected members would not be knocking at their door. The NSF has only itself to blame. Ultimately, elected representatives have to be accountable for public spending, but they like to hand over control to a committee of experts. Said committee grows on the gravy train, and […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…
New recommended interview with renowned Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson dispels global warming hysteria
New recommended interview with renowned Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson dispels global warming hysteria
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-recommended-interview-with-renowned.html
Interviewed in April, 2015, renowned Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson aged 91 gives his views on the global warming hysteria in an interview conducted by “Conversations That Matter”: Selected quotes: “CO2 is so beneficial…it would be crazy to try to reduce it”. “Probably it does us good, the Earth will get greener as a result”. “The general public has a lot more common sense (than the media or politicians)”. “I’m retired, I don’t have to fear losing my job”. “Man-made climate change is, on the whole, good”. “They (the climate models) are no good for prediction”.
— gReader Pro…