Channel 7 results
Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf and Associate Professor Stewart Franks debate climate issues on Channel 7.
Watch here.
A poll, with the rather blunt and poorly worded question “Do you believe in climate change?” shows 33% saying yes, and 67% no. It should have read “Do you believe that man-made emissions of CO2 will lead to dangerous changes in the climate?”
(h/t Adam P)
Australian Climate Madness 
They ask it that way in an attempt to dupe those being polled. Good thing the public is smart enough not to fall for it
Yes, the question is so poorly worded the survey is meaningless. If anything it shows that 67% of the people are either uninformed about the issue or just didn’t take time to think about what the question meant. Even I believe in “global warming” but not anthropomorphic global warming.
I wonder if O’Keefe likes sucking those eggs?
And just look at the mess.
All that Egg on his face.
What never ceases to amaze me though, after all this time and the billions of dollars in research, is the continual use of the same tired old chestnut arguments.
Just how daft do theses buggers think the public are?
Anyway GOOD ON YOU PRUE. One more goal for sanity.
Just shows the lack of understanding of paleoclimate by these ignoramouses who posted this question. It ranks with the question (answer yes and no) of “Do you still beat your wife?”.
This is indicative of a shift in the way the public sees global warming. Only a few short months ago Kochie shouted down a guest who dared to doubt the gospel of man-made warming. Now debates are allowed and encouraged. Seven must have noticed that the public don’t buy the scaremongering.
The question to ask is “do you want to pay to stop global warming”.
Don’t you realize that these polls mean zip. All of the climate sceptics and vested interests hop on the phone multiple times to distort the outcome. This poll and most TV polls are as unscientific as are the bulk of climate change sceptics. The hysteria of Pru Mc Sween says it all – loves to talk over everyone. The debate is over folks and the evidence is in. Human-induced climate change is real and will continue to get worse if mankind keeps burning fossil fuels. Get over it and be part of the solution.
Yawn. Haven’t you got anything more original to say?
Prayer recitals aren’t meant to be informative or original.
Surely you’re not trying to infer that it’s possible to distort data if you have a vested interest in doing so are you?
Well, thanks for dropping by and enlightening us.
We never would have thought it possible…..
Oh by the way, speaking of “vested interests” I’ll bet I can guess your response to the below link.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-warming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/
The retired physics professor has a vested interest right????
‘Don’t you realize that these polls mean zip.’ ‘the evidence is in’
Really? Where is this evidence? You remind me of those offensive door knockers, you know, the ones that disturb a peaceful sunday afternoon, desperately trying to recruit others with their gospel according to??….some bs theory!!
Guess what…santa is real too!!
The sky is falling jonno, hurry back to your ovine flock you daft troll.
No need to insult me. I never did say that the “sky is falling”; just that the world’s climates are being affected by human activity. Most of the hysteria and mindless insults on this issue are coming from the deniers. Please don’t align me with religious recruiters. I don’t believe any of that nonsense about supernatural beings, not even daft trolls.
jonno if you don’t want to be insulted then don’t insult other people by calling them deniers.Simple
If people are denying that anthropogenic climate change is occurring then I can only conclude that those people are deniers on that issue. I’m not insulting them, just stating their position on the issue. Just like Pru, you are playing the man and not the issue. I’m a bit sorry I found your website. Like talkback shockjocks you only seem to want to hear from those who agree with them. Their distorted view of reality is reinforced because they only hear from those like-minded individuals. Others don’t bother listening – seems like your website is of the same ilk. Closed minds appear to enjoy the company of other closed minds. Not really a surprise I suppose.
Jonno, you set up a straw man which completely misrepresents what we say. We do not “deny” AGW is occurring. Everything on this planet affects the climate – animals, plants, geology, volcanoes, oceans, clouds, the sun, cosmic rays and man. Adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in a tiny amount of warming – most of which was related to the first 20ppm. Doubling CO2 now would add, AT MOST, about 1C to global temperature. It is the climate models that exaggerate feedbacks to claim that such a small warming will lead to catastrophic climate change. It is that with which we have a problem. There is no evidence to show that a tiny addition of a trace atmospheric gas will cause such catastrophic warming – only the outputs from climate models which are incomplete and ignore natural climate drivers.
Unfortunately, we are the ones that want to debate these issues openly and impartially, but unfortunately it is the warmists who say “the debate’s over”… Our minds are most definitely not closed, but I’m afraid the warmists’ minds are – they are closed to the possibility that they don’t know everything about the subject of the planet’s climate…
Jonno – if you really think this is a closed-mind workshop then why did your comments get posted? Try posting a factual reference to science which refutes the CAGW IPCC position on the ABC website and see how far you get. Or try getting an opinion which is against carbon taxing into The Age and see how open their minds are.
The truth is if you have something interesting to say it will get discussed. If you come here to call people deniers, accuse them of being big-oil funded or tell us there is a consensus and we are all flat earthers, do you really think people are going to respect your position? If we are all wrong show us the evidence that confirms that busines-as-usual carbon emissions will result in catastrophic climate change – sea level rises, droughts, killer cyclones, all those things. You said the evidence is in, but I’ve inspected ‘the evidence’ and all I can see is circumstantial correlation. Before you rush off, remember anything that comes out of a computer model is only evidence that the model predicts what it was designed for. It’s not evidence of a real thing.
I’m glad you feel discomfited by your visit. It shows that you realise there are people who disagree with your worldview and they may have valid points. That’s your subconcious prompting you to do a bit more digging and find out if your belief system is perhaps maybe wrong.
Oh, and with ‘don’t insult me’ – check your earlier comments to see who threw the first stone there. It might shock you to read back your comments and realise how impolite they are at first glance.
You can “say” what you like like but proof is what you need; and I don’t see any, do you?
Oh, by the way, allow me to save you some typing time – “consensus” is NOT proof.
brc.
There is no need to patronise me with a mini lecture on the evidence base of your beliefs versus mine. I don’t see my comments as insulting. If I remember the original discussion on Channel 7 it was Pru McSween who was hostile, aggressive, hysterical and insulting to “Greenies” over the whole issue. What discomfitted me was the same hostlity and aggression to my posting. I hardly think it insulting to state that TV polls mean zip – they are totally unscientific – no matter what the question. Thanks for your advice to read some more on the issue. I read avidly on many issues; will continue to do so and certainly do not have a closed mind; I’ll leave that to religious leaders and other conservatives. (PS – that was not meant to be an insult either – just an observation of their usual reaction to new ideas.)
“unscientific as are the bulk of climate change sceptics”
That’s pretty insulting.
I’m not going to defend Pru at all. I will say that O’Keefe wasn’t exactly polite in the first shouting match either. However, to his credit, by the end of the debate you could see doubts in his belief system starting to occur.
I cannot believe people are still allowed to trot out the tired old ‘big oil and coal’ routine, claiming that the poor scientists are the ones ploughing ahead on scraps, when nearly all the worlds governments and scientific bodies are lined up pouring money into the scheme. Why this wasn’t the first thing debunked I’ll never know. To get caught up in the IPCC declaration and let the ‘big oil’ funding meme get another airing was a terrible mistake by the ‘against’ side.
Well, it’s scientific in a way. There’s more sceptics than vested interests. Or, I should say : more sceptics willing to phone into sunrise and register their vote.
I’m interested too about this evidence that is in – can you point me to where the empirical data is published that links co2 concentrations and no other reason to the warming period between about the mid 1970s to the mid 2000’s? The one paper that conclusively disproves the null hypothesis that warming periods are the result of natural causes not currently known or understood?
As we saw in the mini debate as soon as it got too hard for Andrew’s confidant he started accusing sceptics of being funded by Multinational Coal & Petroleum Companies. A standard tactic caught at the IPPC and used since Al Gore was their “Role Model”.
BTW Jonno I do have a Science Degree in case your derogatory remarks filtered back to us sceptics.
I not getting a fast enough stream to make it watchable. How is it for others?
Hi Sean, worked OK for me…
Thanks Simon. It appears I have a problem with my connection speed. I did eventually get to see the debate – in excruciatingly small steps with big gaps in between. I believe that Stewart Franks won comfortably. I don’t say that just because he is a sceptic; I have seen sceptics do poorly.
I don’t know why he brought up the 90% with regard to the IPCC’s certainty. That was just giving the other side a free kick. He can’t assume that the public will understand the scientific method and that theory isn’t gauged by popular vote. Having brought it up, he could have pointed out that 90% popularity does not mean 90% certainty or 90% probability. For example, those that raised their hands could have been only 51% convinced. They
couldwould have also been influenced by the fact that the climate industry needs ‘climate change’ for the industry and their funding to survive, else what’s the point? But even that should have been saved for when/if the other side brought it up. He had better stuff to present with the little time available – and note how much time was wasted on that matter.He was good at debunking the supposed alarming sea level rise, pointing out that it has been rising since the ice age and that it is measured in millimetres. That could have been enhanced if he invited people to visit their childhood beaches and note how they don’t look any different. That would have been more persuasive as it would have communicated more directly with the non-scientific audience.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he wasn’t good. He came across as very erudite, calm and relaxed. I envied his serene delivery. It was as if he were having a chat among friends. He did a lot of damage to the warmists. Now if he could just remember that his audience is the general public, not scientists and not his opponents, he would be lethal.
By the way, I would be surprised to see that poll have a last minute surge to the warmists. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them collectively. I doubt they will accept their loss sitting down.
Dirk- uninformed ? quite the opposite, if global warming was flawless why “climate gate ” ? Why is the John Coleman founder of the weather channel & 30,000 scientists sueing Al Gore ? The figures now are the same as medievil days. NASA has proven it is not man made & so on. This “chicken Little” mentality with NO allowance for debate is their mistake. Remember in the 70′-80’s acid rain & the ice age was gonna destroy us all ?
On the wording of poll questions, had Newpoll phoned me in early Dec last year, I would have been included in Shanahan’s “The nation, however, overwhelmingly believes climate change is caused by mankind”. Reason: I’d have answered yes to “climate change is caused partly by human activity”. He added this to “entirely caused by..”
Also, when it comes to willingness to pay more, it limits the question to petrol, electicity and gas.
A rare gem to see a debate like that on national television. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like that here in canada.
Same here in Australia. I doubt they will be keen to do it again.
Certainly not with that result.
They are far more confident being able to edit such exchanges prior to airing…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
I can see it now – the whole interview would have been reduced to the 90 percent certainty gaffe.