back to article World+Dog don't care about climate change, never have done

Seventeen years of continuous surveys covering countries around the world show that people not only do not care about climate change today - understandably prioritising economic misery - they also did not care about climate change even back when times were good. The new information comes in a study released by the National …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Doug Bostrom

    Nice to see that Lewis has finally given up on understanding the sciency part of climate change.

    I suspect that prior to 1950 few would have rated wearing seat belts among the things they could do to improve their safety while riding in automobiles. Happily we're not solidly rooted in ignorance.

    1. Mad Mike

      "Nice to see that Lewis has finally given up on understanding the sciency part of climate change."

      But that's part of the problem. Even the scientists have pretty much given up. They've been overtaken by the hyperbole and need to deliver what politicians want.....e.g. an excuse for raising taxes. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, it is. Has been ever since the earth was formed. What we don't know and scientists don't seem to be able to model, is whether we're (humans that is) are having an effect and how much that effect is. They keep biasing data, keeping some data back because it doesn't happen to fit their model, predicting doom and gloom, before backtracking etc.etc.

      Yes, let's have the science, but let's make it transparent and open. And let's not ignore unfortunate truths such as the last couple (ish) of decades where global warming has stopped. We need to understand what's happening before committing economic suicide in what appears to be a pretty much single handed attempt to stop it. I work for an energy company and the governments energy 'strategy' is nothing but a joke. £10-12billion (currently) on smart meters to reduce consumption, when all the studies suggest it will do nothing. Wind farms that are pretty much useless and have to be subsidised. Electric cars........not practical at the moment. If everyone had an electric car and tried to charge it overnight, the grid would melt!! And where's the electricity coming from?

      We're betting on all the wrong technologies and the government is simply using it as an excuse to tax. Another unfortunate truth is that the USA has reduced its emissions from electricity production dramatically for the first time ever and without any treaties etc. through the use of gas generation. Driven by economics only, they've achieved more than most other countries by actually using a fossil fuel!! Shale gas makes this not just economic, but actually environmentally sound (from a CO2 emissions perspective) as well!!

      1. Tim Parker

        "And let's not ignore unfortunate truths such as the last couple (ish) of decades where global warming has stopped."

        No it hasn't - regardless of whatever you may wish to attribute that to. Please go and read the science you talk about.

        1. Mad Mike

          "No it hasn't - regardless of whatever you may wish to attribute that to. Please go and read the science you talk about."

          Are the met office scientists? I rather thought they were.

          The graph is very interesting also for the flattening around the 50s.

          http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

          1. Tim Parker

            "No it hasn't - regardless of whatever you may wish to attribute that to. Please go and read the science you talk about."

            Are the met office scientists? I rather thought they were.

            The graph is very interesting also for the flattening around the 50s.

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

            Yes they are scientists - and they probably understand the difference between surface temperatures and "global warming".

            1. Mad Mike

              "Yes they are scientists - and they probably understand the difference between surface temperatures and "global warming"."

              So, now global warming is being limited to only a specific type of temperature is it? All you're doing is exactly what gives the man made global warming crowd a bad name. You're changing definitions all the time. Oh dear, this temperature (whatever it may be) seems to have stabilised. Oh well, we'll simply say we meant this other temperature instead.

              That's half the problem. The people trying to put forward this 'science' keep changing their definitions and what their measure of warming is etc.

              So, could you give me the exact meaning of 'global warming' then and exactly which temperature it is you're talking about.

              Of course, the link between surface temperatures and air temperatures is well established!! Or, are you talking about a temperature somewhere high up in the atmosphere?

              1. Tim Parker

                @Mad Mike

                "Yes they are scientists - and they probably understand the difference between surface temperatures and "global warming"."

                So, now global warming is being limited to only a specific type of temperature is it?

                Nope. Never has been, and is not now. Here's a hint - what covers around 70% of the Earth and is very deep.

                All you're doing is exactly what gives the man made global warming crowd a bad name. You're changing definitions all the time.

                No i'm not - i'm just pointing out that surface temperature is not the only indicator of global energy retention.

                Oh dear, this temperature (whatever it may be) seems to have stabilised. Oh well, we'll simply say we meant this other temperature instead.

                Don't be an arse.

                1. Mad Mike
                  FAIL

                  Re: @Mad Mike

                  "Nope. Never has been, and is not now. Here's a hint - what covers around 70% of the Earth and is very deep."

                  Indeed. But, ocean also has a surface and therefore can have a surface temperature. I've just looked up various surface temperature maps and they cover the oceans as well as the land. So, what's the issue with surface temperature?

                  "No i'm not - i'm just pointing out that surface temperature is not the only indicator of global energy retention."

                  No it isn't. But, it isn't following the pattern they thought it would. So, you're just saying oh well, this one doesn't follow what is expected, so I'll choose another temperature.

                  "Don't be an arse."

                  It's not me jumping around, accepting one temperature and drawing conclusions from it and ignoring another because it doesn't support my argument.

                  1. Tim Parker

                    Re: @Mad Mike

                    ""Nope. Never has been, and is not now. Here's a hint - what covers around 70% of the Earth and is very deep."

                    Indeed. But, ocean also has a surface and therefore can have a surface temperature. I've just looked up various surface temperature maps and they cover the oceans as well as the land. So, what's the issue with surface temperature?"

                    Nothing in particular, it's part of the picture .. my point was it cannot be used to say what the short term trend is in the global energy budget because it's effected in the short by other factors, e.g. La Nina/El Nino. Look at the data you linked, look at the papers and discussions about this - and why the energy sink in the deep ocean is not in lock with what happens on the surface. Don't take my word for it - go and have a look at some information about this.

                    ""No i'm not - i'm just pointing out that surface temperature is not the only indicator of global energy retention."

                    No it isn't. But, it isn't following the pattern they thought it would."

                    What makes you think that ?

                    "So, you're just saying oh well, this one doesn't follow what is expected, so I'll choose another temperature."

                    No i'm not - neither are the scientists behind the papers i've seen.

                    ""Don't be an arse."

                    It's not me jumping around, accepting one temperature and drawing conclusions from it and ignoring another because it doesn't support my argument."

                    Neither am I - the original statement I questioned was that global warming had stalled in the last 2 decades.. as has already been pointed out in this thread, data seems to indicate that the increase in surface temperatures has slowed - partially or wholly on the expected impact of a reasonable robust La Nina (as we have seen before). You then linked some data of surface data which actually demonstrated the rise in surface temperatures over the last century. Even so, although demonstrating nicely this trend, this is not the same as the energy buildup in a global sense (atmosphere, surface, ocean) - again then are plenty of places available out there which discuss this. So - did I jump around ? I don't think so - I questioned a specific point (global warming stalling vs. surface temperature) which you then pointed out more surface temperature data, to which I pointed out exactly the same issue - and then you started talking about me 'jumping around'.... do you see my point ?

                    On another accusation of yours - I am not ignoring any "temperature", whatever that might mean - what makes you think so ? Is it lack of clarity in my comments (quite likely), a lack of your understanding of the issue (it would seem quite likely) or something else ?

                    I'm more than happy to debate things and I have a healthy dose of skepticism about a number of things - but repeatedly telling me i'm changing tune when all i've discussed from the start is the difference in global energy retention vs short term surface temperature measurements is not really helping. Enough people in this thread have pointed out issues to look at that might be relevant to this conversation, but i've not seen any evidence that you have explored any of them. Pity.

      2. Kiwiiano
        FAIL

        Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

        You haven't been watching Faux news again have you? Your claims are simply WRONG!

        Scientists don't model our contribution to climate change, they measure it. They know how much coal oil and gas is burnt (30 billion tonnes per year) and they know how fast the atmospheric CO2 and other green house gases are rising. They then measure the different isotopes of carbon in the CO2.... carbon coming from fossil fuels is different from that derived fromliving or recently dead plants and animals.

        It's also WRONG to claim global warming has stopped. Atmospheric temperature rises have slowed for the last decade or so because of successive La Ninas and a couple of big volcanic eruptions that tend to lower temperatures, but atmospheric temperature is only just over 2% of the planet. The oceans for a start hold 93% and their temperature has continued to creep upward as predicted.

        It's also WRONG to claim natural gas is environmentally sound. It's just not as bad as coal or shale oil. It's still a fossil fuel and every tonne burnt still puts more CO2 into the atmosphere. Worst still is the unburnt components of natural gas that are stronger green house gases than CO2.

        What would be good would be for subsidies to be taken off the fossil fuel industries and diverted to finding alternatives. Breakthroughs in solar electricity generation are coming all the time and there are many ways to avoid using fossil carbon. We will have to eventually, lets do it before we wreck the planet.

        1. Fading Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

          Wow capital letters with assertations - well I'm convinced. I can see you're a keen reader of SkS with your ocean heat content myth. Please check your OHC trends again and this time use the latest figures (don't stop at 2006) and also please correct for the Argo "corrections" .

          As to more CO2 being bad - given radiative energy transfer is the slowest means of energy transfer (or thermos flasks wouldn't work) How can slightly changing the amount of CO2 in a convection current (the atmosphere) change surface temperature? The surface is losing energy at a particular rate (via convection, evaporation and radiation) you slightly reduce the radiative rate - would that not just increase the convection/evaporation rate without subsequent temperature increase?

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

            "and also please correct for the Argo "corrections""

            Correct for the corrections? IOW uncorrect it?

            "given radiative energy transfer is the slowest means of energy transfer (or thermos flasks wouldn't work) How can slightly changing the amount of CO2 in a convection current (the atmosphere) change surface temperature? The surface is losing energy at a particular rate (via convection, evaporation and radiation) you slightly reduce the radiative rate - would that not just increase the convection/evaporation rate without subsequent temperature increase?"

            The Earth's surface actually loses more energy by radiation than by any other means of energy transfer. For exampe see: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif

            "you slightly reduce the radiative rate - would that not just increase the convection/evaporation rate without subsequent temperature increase?"

            Does extra sunlight just increase the convection/evaporation rate without subsequent temperature increase?

            1. Fading Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

              Ahh noms back again....

              "Correct for the corrections? IOW uncorrect it?"

              Yep when the Argo buoys were originally launched the measurements returned were a lot lower than expected so the figures were "adjusted".

              Good old Trenberth again - yes ultimately the energy is lost to space as radiation (at the edge of the atmosphere - though of course some is lost by escaping molecules) but now work out the energy required to run the hydrological cycle. Also work out the how much energy is used in the photosynthesis cycle. We have a lot of energy used within the system changing the state of water which takes up energy at the surface and lower levels and moves it (against gravity) to higher levels of the atmosphere. Also the earth is not a black body so most of the estimations of the energy budget are fudges bigger than the biggest fudge you can imagine.

              Extra sunlight does "work" on the system therefore increasing the temperature. Extra CO2 does not do any extra work so does not increase the temperature. Now if you wish to challenge the laws of thermodynamics go ahead.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

                "Yep when the Argo buoys were originally launched the measurements returned were a lot lower than expected so the figures were "adjusted"."

                I see. Your dogmatic faith based position has no room for the original, preliminary, data containing errors that needed subsequent correction. Because you liked the original results, therefore any correction away from them must be wrong.

                "Extra sunlight does "work" on the system therefore increasing the temperature. Extra CO2 does not do any extra work so does not increase the temperature. Now if you wish to challenge the laws of thermodynamics go ahead."

                I have no wish to challenge your lack of understanding of thermodynamics. Anyone who is so foolish as to imagine the greenhouse effect violates laws of thermodynamics is beyond help. You might as well be arguing the Earth is 6000 years old.

        2. Mad Mike

          Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

          "Scientists don't model our contribution to climate change, they measure it."

          How come they continually bang on about their climate models then? Also, they keep predicting what will happen in x years time. How do they do that without models? Science is all about models. Anything else is unscientific.

          "Atmospheric temperature rises have slowed for the last decade or so because of successive La Ninas and a couple of big volcanic eruptions that tend to lower temperatures, but atmospheric temperature is only just over 2% of the planet."

          Has someone actually proven this hypothesis? No, thought not. They are saying La Ninas and eruptions etc. are causing this, but to prove it, they need to wait for one to occur and then succsessfully predict using models (earlier point again) what will happen and be proven right when it does. Anyone can keep amending a model according to observations, but until you successfully predict using the model, you haven't proved it.

          "It's also WRONG to claim natural gas is environmentally sound."

          I never said it was. I just said that by using it, the USA have reduced their CO2 output from electricity generation for the first time. Therefore, one can argue it is less bad than say coal. I never said it was environmentally sound, but then nothing is. Even windfarms are just less damaging, not non-damaging. They do, after all, require environmentally unsound processes (such as concrete) to build etc. Even windfarms put CO2 into the atmosphere during manufacture.

          "What would be good would be for subsidies to be taken off the fossil fuel industries and diverted to finding alternatives"

          Perhaps you could provide a reference for this, as to my knowledge, all the subsidies are heading the other way at the moment. You might like to look at your energy bills (if in UK), as they often show the 'environmental levy' on them!!

          "Breakthroughs in solar electricity generation are coming all the time and there are many ways to avoid using fossil carbon."

          Yes they are. However, nothing at the moment can provide anywhere near the same generation capability and reliability. When they do, great, but that's a long way off.

          "We will have to eventually, lets do it before we wreck the planet."

          Finally, something you're right on!! I absolutely agree. But lets try and not put everyone back into caves in doing so.

        3. Charles Manning

          They can't measure our contribution

          All they can measure is temperature etc. They cannot measure how much is due to human causes and how much is due to natural causes because there is no way to tell them them apart.

          So that is why they bang on about their models. The models they build are supposed to model what is happening and thus allow them to figure out the contributions.

          Unfortunately nature is far more complicated than any model.

          Scientists are people too and are thus prone to confirmation bias - tweaking the models to support their pet theories.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?

          "It's also WRONG to claim global warming has stopped. Atmospheric temperature rises have slowed for the last decade or so because of successive La Ninas and a couple of big volcanic eruptions that tend to lower temperatures, but atmospheric temperature is only just over 2% of the planet. The oceans for a start hold 93% and their temperature has continued to creep upward as predicted."

          I note that you fail to acknowledge that solar output is currently illustrating a decreasing multi-cycle trend. You also fail to address the issue to plant based CO2 absorption. Both are contentious issues with much research still required.

          The science is absolutely illustrative, it is far from absolutely authoritative however.

          Currently it's a case of many 'known unknowns' in amongst all the hard data and science, as such a scientific consensus is required. But, concensus != undeniable absolutes.

      3. Jim O'Reilly
        Pint

        Climate and scientists

        It seems to me that the serious climatologists are swamped by opportunists who know that they can get grants by predicting imminent doom and gloom.

        I know a NASA senior scientist who said, essentially, "AGW is mostly bunk and the evidence is very thin, but if we said that publicly we'd lose a lot of funding".

        We need to have an honest review of the climate issue, not one run by vested interests such as IPCC. I think the AGW issue would melt away!

        We could do as much as electric car deployment would achieve by commuting in small cars. The UK lists over 80 mainly diesel cars with lower emissions than a Prius, and smaller cars would alleviate parking. Or better still, telecommute! (Sorry MS Mayer!)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Climate and scientists

          "I know a NASA senior scientist who said, essentially, "AGW is mostly bunk and the evidence is very thin, but if we said that publicly we'd lose a lot of funding"."

          Well I know a senior Scientologist and he said "It's all true and you are going to be fried to a crisp very soon"

      4. Jim O'Reilly

        Climate and scientists

        It seems to me that the serious climatologists are swamped by opportunists who know that they can get grants by predicting imminent doom and gloom.

        I know a NASA senior scientist who said, essentially, "AGW is mostly bunk and the evidence is very thin, but if we said that publicly we'd lose a lot of funding".

        We need to have an honest review of the climate issue, not one run by vested interests such as IPCC. I think the AGW issue would melt away!

        We could do as much as electric car deployment would achieve by commuting in small cars. The UK lists over 80 mainly diesel cars with lower emissions than a Prius, and smaller cars would alleviate parking. Or better still, telecommute! (Sorry MS Mayer!)

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Agree, people may need to look more longterm and be more honest than they are comfortable with.

        Who would like the problem to be solved, but around 2040 or so? Well, it's possible. Sadly people are squeamish about planning possibly slightly beyond their own lifespan.

        For example:-

        http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-24_en.htm

    2. g e
      Holmes

      Doesn't matter

      That's what the scientists are for, even you, dear poster, could possibly be capable of simply reporting what they said.

      Even if some of that science disagrees with the doomsayers (though I guess you could suppress that, of course)

    3. c4m1k4z3
      Facepalm

      as someone who has studied Meteorology and Climatology at university, I find the downvotes really quite depressing. also the author appears to be pissing into the ocean

      do you treat your car like you (appear to suggest that you) treat the environment?

    4. Naughtyhorse

      Happily we're not solidly rooted in ignorance.

      Apparently 15 reg readers are

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Grew up in the 1950s. Didn't wear a seat belt until 1969, my first car. I'm still here.

      Your analogy is as flawed as climate change.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hope the Guardian's Monbiot reads this report.

    Maybe then he will stop talking as if his opinion is the "will of the masses".

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. P_0

      Re: That's USA, right?

      In any case, the underlying issue is that most politicians lack the vertebra required to push an unpopular decision once in a while (f.e cut down on your intravenous Middle East oil dependency).

      They did that. It's called fracking.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: That's USA, right?

        There appears to be a lot of bad press concerning Fracking, most notably for the environment. Is it really an alternative solution ?

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: That's USA, right?

          "There appears to be a lot of bad press concerning Fracking, most notably for the environment."

          I strongly suspect that should read

          "There appears to be a lot of bad press concerning Fracking, most notably from the environmentalists"

          I always read article with "doom, gloom, being exploited and being lied to by powerful interests (linked to republicans)" on fracking generally underneath an article about how global warming is still not being taken seriously or suppressed by powerful interests (generally linked to republicans). Go figure.

        2. Mad Mike

          Re: That's USA, right?

          Like everything fracking has its ups and downs. Some of this is whether its done correctly and some is inherent in the technology. The question is really which of a bad bunch are we willing to go with. There's no real 'good' option, so its more a case of picking the least 'bad'. Yes, fracking has potential environmental impacts, but then so do wind farms and hydro schemes etc.etc.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: That's USA, right? potential environmental ..

            like tap water catching on fire.

            i mean

            like tap water catching on fracking fire!

            1. Dr Dan Holdsworth Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: That's USA, right? potential environmental ..

              Yes, well if you will source your drinking water from a borehole which taps directly into an old coalmine, then you're going to get methane in the water, aren't you?

              If you're referring to the Gaslands film, you might like to know that this "methane in the tapwater" thing was happening BEFORE the fracking operation began, for the aforementioned reason.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That's USA, right? potential environmental ..

                I bet the hydraulic fluid contamination in the groundwater wasn't though.

    2. Mad Mike

      Re: That's USA, right?

      I totally agree that politicians lack the vertebra. The Middle East oil dependency could be broken by only by using fracking for oil,as well as gas. Unfortunately, as of yet, no other suitable alternative for oil (i.e. petrol and diesel) actually exists. Electric cars are simply not viable, either practically or financially. Yes, we should research and get them better, but for now, they're pretty close to useless. Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment. Nothing else has the capacity and dependability for base load, let alone financial viability (yes, I know the financials around nuclear may be dubious as well, but they're better than wind for instance).

      As to the Maldives.......well, I'm afraid they'll simply have to move. The climate on earth has changed hugely over time with or without mans help. Sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically and locations like the Maldives has gone under the water before. Just because men are now on them, doesn't give it the god given right not to. That's climate change, which is a perfectly natural thing.

      At some point, we'll learn it's better to 'go with' climate change, than constantly try to fight it. Nature is more powerful than humans (no matter what we think) and we'll loose in the end.

      1. Mikel

        Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment.

        Geothermal is also good.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment.

          "Geothermal is also good."

          Absolutely. Geothermal has many advantages, not least reliability of generation (not relient on wind etc.). However, how much research is going into it? Very little in comparison with wind, which is being thrown up everywhere at huge cost and it simply can't deal with base load. We need to identify which potential generation options are reliable and could be good in the long term and invest in them, both research and deployment. Wind is not one of those. It's not even a quick fix really. So, why are we investing so much in it, other than short term politicial advantage?

          1. James Micallef Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment.

            Geothermal (just like Hydroelectric) is excellent for reliability and 'renewability' but limited to particular geographic locations (mountains + rivers for hydro, volvanically active / thin crust locations for geothermal). It should be used to the max of its capability, but most of the prime spots are already being used (eg Iceland) and non-prime spots become progressively more expensive verging on uneconomical.

            Same holds for wind by the way, you can't take data from the current windfarms in prime locations and extend that to the rest of the world to project some fantastical future (see el Reg peak wind article earlier this week). The one 'renewable' that still has lots of potential is solar, mostly because a lot of the prime locations are in poorer / less developed or troubled / wartorn nations, but this also has the intermittancy /storage drawback.

          2. Naughtyhorse
            Joke

            Re: Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment.

            Wind provides a key component in fighting global warming!!

            after we realise they are a waste of space as generation (which they clearly are - even if the wind blew all the time, they are still shite) Then we can wire them up backwards and use them as bloody big fans to cool us all down!

            1. Mad Mike
              Joke

              Re: Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment.

              "after we realise they are a waste of space as generation (which they clearly are - even if the wind blew all the time, they are still shite) Then we can wire them up backwards and use them as bloody big fans to cool us all down!"

              I'm sure the sheep on Scottish hillsides will be very pleased with this. Not sure about the fish in the North Sea though.

          3. Charles Manning

            Geothermal is very limited

            There are just few places in the world where geothermal is economical. And it isn't infinite.

            Wind has some huge appeal because it is very visible. This allows the politicians to tell the voters they are doing something (being interviewed with a windfarm in the background).

      2. Ledswinger Silver badge

        Re: That's USA, right?@Mad Mike

        "At some point, we'll learn it's better to 'go with' climate change, than constantly try to fight it. Nature is more powerful than humans (no matter what we think) and we'll loose in the end."

        Politcians and bureaucrats certainly won't, I'm afraid. Canute is remembered for trying to turn back the tide and failing, not for the fact that he was demonstrating to his courtiers that he could not.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: That's USA, right?@Mad Mike

          "Politcians and bureaucrats certainly won't, I'm afraid. Canute is remembered for trying to turn back the tide and failing, not for the fact that he was demonstrating to his courtiers that he could not."

          Very true. A seemingly built-in function of human beings is an absolute arrogance over everything around. We MUST be more powerful than nature. We're human beings after all. When, in reality, Canute was absolutely right and obviously far more intelligent than his advisors.

          Shame there's not more of it about.

        2. Dr Dan Holdsworth Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: That's USA, right?@Mad Mike

          The basic problem with trying to fight climate change is that right from the start, you're on a hiding to nothing. To limit CO2 output, you have to get every single major emitter on-side and cooperating. Since China, the USA, Russia, the Ukraine, India, pretty much most of Africa and so on all refuse to thus cooperate, then this sort of limitation is not going to work from the word go.

          Doing as Britain has done and putting into law a raft of frankly moronic limits without having a way to compel obedience from anyone else, and without having alternative power sources that actually work for base-load output (do note this bit), all the UK climate change bill is going to do is make whichever government tries to follow it extremely unpopular.

          Britain is a democracy. Democracies work on votes, cast by voters. If several parties have as their electoral platform "Vote for us, we'll tax hell out of you in pursuit of a daydream" and one does not, then guess who gets elected?

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: That's USA, right?@Mad Mike

            @Dr Dan Holdsworth

            Spot on the money. What we do is irrelevant unless it's part of a bigger whole throughout the world. There is no concensus anywhere for that to occur and now we're looking at bankrupting ourselves and making us the poor man of the world in pursuit of doing 'our bit' even if nobody else will. Now, I'm all for trying to do something about things, but it has to be part of a whole and sensible. Putting ourselves back in the stone age to do it, is not really viable.

            When people really start realising how much this environmental stuff is costing them, it'll have two impacts. Firstly, there will be major voting changes according to who offers an alternative. Look at your energy bills now and see how much is down to environmental levy etc. Energy bills don't really need to be rising much now. It's primarily down to issues not around the cost of the materials themselves. Secondly, action on doing something about the environment will be set back decades. Because people will have felt they've been lied to and taken advantage of, they'll be even less responsive to environmental changes in the future.

            So, all in all, this is if anything, putting the environmental agenda back, not forwards.

      3. Ogi

        Re: That's USA, right?

        There are alternatives to petrol/diesel.

        Biobutanol is pretty much a total replacement for petrol, no need for engine modification. Ethanol needs modification to the engine/fuel system/fuel lines/ECU for cars that are not designed as "flexfuel".

        Biodiesel works in old diesel engines, it needs a bit of refinement for use in modern direct injection diesels, but is not an insurmountable issue.

        We have all the alternatives to synthesise fuel for transport (in fact, over a century ago, before fossil derived petrol/diesel, this is what cars/engines ran on).

        The only reason we do not use them is because synthesis would cost more than the current prices of fuel. I seem to remember someone calculating that petrol would have to hit £1.20 a litre in order to make butanol a worthwhile alternative (note, that is £1.20 a litre of actual fuel cost, not including the crazy 70%+ tax we pay).

        I do also know that biobutanol is coming online for small scale testing refineries in Europe, so people are planning for the future, and working on it.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: That's USA, right?

          @Ogi.

          I agree and if we can get them working, all power to them. They do, however, have one big disadvantage. They all require the use of crops to provide them. This has two effects. Firstly, it puts food prices up and supply down as land is turned over to growing fuel rather than food. Secondly, the first point leads to deforestation etc. to provide more farm land. So, again, they're not all positives, there are some negatives. Overall though, as part of the mix, a step in the right direction.

          1. Ogi

            Re: That's USA, right?

            @Mad Mike

            Well, you can use any biomatter. Quite why would anyone grow food and burn it makes no sense to me. More likely to make use of non-edible leftovers, weeds, refuse, etc... that is not needed for feeding.

            Not to mention, from what I heard about the EU, a huge amount of perfectly edible food is thrown away every day due to over supply. Things like the CAP keep EU farmers producing with a subsidy. What usually happens is either:

            a) The good goes to waste, literally, they just let it rot, or

            b) they dump it on the market, which in the past got them in trouble because they were driving farmers in the developing world bankrupt, and causing these countries to require food aid.

            c) they don't farm the land at all. Essentially they a paid to keep the land fallow.

            We don't have a problem feeding people, we generate more food that the entire human population needs. It is more about distributing the food, and the difference in production per sq/m in Europe and say, Africa.

            Quite frankly, if we got all these extra European farmers producing crops for fuel instead of food, we may well stabalise the food supply, rather than having this unstable supply/dumping/etc... and also not have to pay people to not work.

            Oh, and the food prices have little to do with food supply, more to do with speculators hoarding food on the commodity markets to make a fast buck.

            Some of the research in biofuel now is in using algae, rather than plant matter. Nothing is insurmountable with this technology at the moment. All that it needs is refinement, and research into scaling it, which is more of engineering challange.

            Also, the UK government has removed fuel duty for the first 2500 litres of biofuel you produce yourself for personal consumption, so unless you need more than 200 litres of fuel a month, you could in theory do this and get very cheap fuel (assuming they have not changed anything).

            1. Mad Mike

              Re: That's USA, right?

              @Ogi

              "Well, you can use any biomatter. Quite why would anyone grow food and burn it makes no sense to me. More likely to make use of non-edible leftovers, weeds, refuse, etc... that is not needed for feeding."

              I agree. But, the quantity we need far exceeds this level. There would undoubtedly have to be a level of crops used. We can cut it down, but it'll still be there. Also, if we're talking about fuel for cars, that pretty much is totally crops. Borneo is loosing large amounts of forest at the moment and it's mostly down to planting crops for bio diesel.

              "We don't have a problem feeding people, we generate more food that the entire human population needs. It is more about distributing the food, and the difference in production per sq/m in Europe and say, Africa."

              True to a point, but this will only remain viable if we control the population and that looks a distant dream at the moment. There's also a huge difference between what people 'need' and what they 'want'. Moving to need rather than want would reduce the developed worlds food requirements dramatically.

              "Oh, and the food prices have little to do with food supply, more to do with speculators hoarding food on the commodity markets to make a fast buck."

              That's pretty much true for any commodity these days.

              "Some of the research in biofuel now is in using algae, rather than plant matter."

              Are people considering what the impact would be of covering large areas of water with algae? That in its own right, could alter the climate!! Reflectiveness of the surface, gasses produced by the algae etc.etc.

              "Also, the UK government has removed fuel duty for the first 2500 litres of biofuel you produce yourself for personal consumption, so unless you need more than 200 litres of fuel a month, you could in theory do this and get very cheap fuel (assuming they have not changed anything)."

              Political skyboating. Trying to make themselves look good. They would never want this to actually occur for two reasons. Firstly, fall in fuel duty revenues. Secondly, it's actually quite a dangerous process and having every tom, dick and harry doing it in their garage would be very dangerous.

        2. James Micallef Silver badge

          Re: That's USA, right?

          "note, that is £1.20 a litre of actual fuel cost, not including the crazy 70%+ tax we pay"

          Not necessarily, just make the biofuel tax-free, provided it meets certain standards

          1. Mad Mike
            Joke

            Re: That's USA, right?

            "Not necessarily, just make the biofuel tax-free, provided it meets certain standards"

            Ha, ha, ha, ha.

            Sorry, my sides have split!!

            Part of the reason for the man made climate change religion is that politicians love it. The opportunities for them to relieve us of our cash are endless. It's also why they only subsidise pointless things that only a small number of people will ever use. e.g. electric cars.

          2. Alan W. Rateliff, II
            Paris Hilton

            Re: That's USA, right?

            "Not necessarily, just make the biofuel tax-free, provided it meets certain standards"

            That will only go so far. The natural instinct of government is to tax, so if you starve that one on consumable, biofuel in this case, then the tax will need to be made up elsewhere. Arguably for legitimate purposes in the case of transportation as a portion of fuel taxes are used to fund roadways and related "infrastructure." This manifests as some localities (and states like Washington, IIRC) wanting to impose a mileage fee on hybrid and electric vehicles as, obviously, owners of such offending vehicles are not paying their fair share to use the roads.

            Paris, tons of tax-free mileage.

            1. James Micallef Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: That's USA, right?

              @Alan W "The natural instinct of government is to tax".

              The reason governmenst want to tax stuff is so they can use the money for their pet programmes, so having the biofuel tax-free would be a subsidy for biofuel, ie would need to be government policy to not tax biofuel... or to gradually increase tax on it as yields (and price) fall, to keep some sort of parity with petrol.

              It certainly beats spending that money on subsidising wind farms

              1. Mad Mike

                Re: That's USA, right?

                "The reason governmenst want to tax stuff is so they can use the money for their pet programmes, so having the biofuel tax-free would be a subsidy for biofuel, ie would need to be government policy to not tax biofuel... or to gradually increase tax on it as yields (and price) fall, to keep some sort of parity with petrol.

                It certainly beats spending that money on subsidising wind farms"

                Absolutely. The problem is, the amount of money raised through taxation on fuel is so high that any substantial move away from it would cause enourmous ripples throughout the rest of the taxation system. You're not talking about raising a few hundred million here. We're talking tens of billions. You've got to raise it from somewhere. How do you do that without loosing huge numbers of votes?

                I do agree about wind farms mind. Total waste of subsidy. Mind you, solar PV is not much better.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    who is this 'dog' you keep mentioning?

    Not Colin from Dunny-on-the-wold is it?

    1. Katie Saucey

      Re: who is this 'dog' you keep mentioning?

      I assume it was my dog, she really doesn't care about much...except food, and people wearing hats (not sure how the agw stuff affects the hat quirk, but neither of us care).

  5. 1Rafayal
    Pint

    I am happy to say I am one of the people who do care about climate change.

    I will be very concerned about on my flight later today

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I know how you feel. I am very much looking forward to my flight to a warmer climate next week, even if it's only termporary.

  6. Paul Johnston

    Er?

    Immigration and the environment did not make the top of the list in any country over the 17-year period;

    Okay neither made the top but I dare say the former does seem to exercise a lot of people.

    Why lump two concerns together which seem to have very little connection/correlation.

    Also 60 years ago nobody was concerned about the effects of smoking, (no one really knew the dangers) does this mean it should still be ignored?

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Er?

      Why should people be concerned if they don't know of the danger. 60 years ago, smoking wasn't seen as a health hazard and the research indicating it was either wasn't available or was highly contained. So, people who smoked 60 years ago could be forgiven for arguing they didn't know. Those smoking today absolutely do know and still choose to. That's their choice I would say, but don't expect me to pay for it.

      Mind you, it's probably fair to say that putting anything into your body that isn't normally there, is probably not really a good idea. Same goes for drugs (both legal and prescription), alcohol etc.etc.

      1. Paul Johnston

        Re: Er?

        Like your description of evidence about smoking being "highly contained"

        More accurate might be that a famous statistician being paid by the tobacco industry and saying actually "lung cancer caused smoking" not the other way round.

      2. Michael Dunn

        Re: Er?

        "Mind you, it's probably fair to say that putting anything into your body that isn't normally there, is probably not really a good idea. Same goes for drugs (both legal and prescription), alcohol etc.etc." .......and food?

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Er?

          "and food?"

          Isn't food something that's normally in your body? Food is made up of the same compounds etc. as found throughout your body. The exact physical look may change, but the compounds are generally the same (assuming no drugs from the animal etc.).

    2. James Micallef Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Er?

      Well, yes, of course "it's the economy, stupid" - people are mostly concerned about that because that's what has an immediate impact in their lives. Climate change* is decades-long. Humans are incredibly short-termist. What IS worrying is that although people's major concern is the economy, it keeps getting more and more screwed up. If people on these forums get worked up about climate models, bog knows what they would say about economic ones.

      *Incidentally, the survey mentioned 'environment' not 'climate change', which is a subset of environmental concerns. There's many things in the environment to worry about that have nothing at all to do with climate change.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well reported.....

    Another Lewis article....

    HEADLINE: NO ONE CARES ABOUT CLIMATE:

    read article (and I quote)

    "the economy ranked as the highest concern, while concern for the environment ranked sixth. "

    So being 6th ranked means no one cares does it?

    Oddly how high ranking was good sanitation in the USA or a reliable mobile phone signal? But when it all goes horribly wrong, where then? it's easy to take for granted things that work, it when they go tits up everyone notices.

    Classic example, in the last survery of the UK, how many people said that processed meat qualty was there No1 concern? Now go out there and ask that now.

    Lewis, we know you have an agenda, but please read your own articles and understand them before ramming bullshit headlines down our throats.

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Well reported.....

      I think the point here is not that nobody is concerned about the environment, but that people are more concerned about the economy than the environment. As these are often on the opposite sides of a coin, that means we need to look at things more from an economic point of view than an environmental. Don't forget, nobody has yet shown what impact we're having on the environment (there are a lot of theories, but we keep getting opposing real world data which shows they aren't terribly correct at the moment), but we do know what impact we're having on the economy and peoples standard of living etc.

      So, people are living for today rather than a 100 or 200 years hence. Unfortunately, that's the way it's always been and the way it will always be. Human beings are by nature, very selfish.

      1. James Micallef Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Well reported.....

        Re economy and environment being "opposite sides of a coin", the biggest push to combat climate change may yet come from that backbone of capitalist money-making, the insurance industry. These are people who REALLY look at facts and will not fudge their science because their bottom line depends on it. When giant re-insurers liek Munich Re start looking at their massive payouts for severe weather events and connect that to climate change (which is starting to happen), then finally the economic costs of climate change will start being factored into teh economy through increased insurance premiums.

        1. Gavin King

          Re: Well reported.....

          I have often thought along these lines, that the actuary types will do a better job of analysing the effects on the environments, simply because they have no agenda other than keeping the insurance company profitable.

    2. Eddie Edwards
      Thumb Up

      Re: Well reported.....

      And of course the purpose of government is to take care of all the things no one cares about, to prevent it all going tits up. This is why you're forced to pay tax, rather than, say, just paying what you feel like towards things you care about today/this week/this month.

  8. Mark 78

    I didn't realise that was how it worked......

    I didn't realise people were only allowed to be concerned about a single issue. I credited some of them with the ability to be concerned about several issues, of which the environment may be one, but not always the most important one to them.

  9. Kanhef
    FAIL

    Flawed study

    It appears they asked the question, "which of these eight issues are you most concerned about?", as if people are only capable of caring about one of them, and assumed they don't give a damn about the other seven. A properly done study would have allowed people to indicate how concerned they are (from 'not at all' to 'extremely') about each of those issues.

    Also, "seventeen years of continuous surveys" is flat-out wrong. According to the linked report, the survey was conducted exactly three times, in 1993, 2000, and 2010.

    1. ChrisM

      Re: Flawed study

      If the economy is ranked No.1 and the environment No.6 then, given a conflict, most of the population would prioritise economy over environment.

  10. Chris Hawkins
    Linux

    World+Dog

    Don't understand where K9s fit into this story????

    As far as I know they have never expressed any thoughts on the issue of climate change!

    ;))))

  11. James Pickett

    "decades of climate alarmism have had basically no effect on people's attitude around the world"

    If only politicians felt the same way. Sadly, they have spotted a gravy train and jumped aboard, forgetting to check how we (in the UK) can keep the lights on when major power stations are about to be decommissioned.

  12. Great Bu

    NORCs

    Fnarr.

  13. Richard Jones 1
    Happy

    Not Surprising Really the Law of Offsets applies

    Given that the for most people the question is; will I have a job and/or an income tomorrow - both rely on the economy. So clearly if they are asked about various life factors they will rank those that directly affect them most highly as being top of their agenda.

    Given that the politicians want to use the environment as an excuse to raise taxes, it is not an easy sell.

    Many green lobby/environmentalists, etc. keep saying that we have to live like people in some long forgotten past to save the environment, but most 'main stream' people will rank survival, i.e. the economy above many, if not most environmental issues. Comfort considerations will also drive the 'green agenda' further down the list since the green agenda appears to most to suggest we all live in unheated homes and walk everywhere either through direct force or via excessive costs.

    The comments about smoking are so irrelevant to be at best laughable and to show only a lack of grasp of the context. Relatively few would have been economically affected in any negative way by stopping smoking and, given employment statistics at the time, most would have easily found another job, e.g growing food for the starving.

    Now the situation is radically different, loose your job and standard of living because something might happen at some point somewhere distant is not an easy sell. Even more difficult iwhen there are vast unknowns.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    62%

    of the nations listed are in Europe (exc Russia) - if the same questions had been asked in more of the developing world I'm guessing seal level rise etc would have figured more highly.

    As it stands there is nothing even remotely surprising in those numbers though the author as ever seems determined to cling to his libertarian climate change denial agenda not withstanding the fact this report sited adds no grist to his mill

    Luckily Rik's recent articles are balancing out the Reg's piss-poor coverage of this subject. When it comes to climate science the Reg is about as reliable a news source as the Daily Mail, which is quite a condemnation.

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: 62%

      Would the developing world rate it higher.......doubt it.

      Unless the people questioned live on an island about to go underwater, they would simply move a bit inland. People in the developing world are far more pragmatic and far more concerned about tomorrow. So, asked whether they wish to stop burning coal to produce electricity (thereby enabling them to earn a living) and stop the sea level rising, they'd almost certainly elect to keep burning the coal, keep employed and simply move inland a bit.

      Issues of immediate concern are of far more importance than some way off, maybe never issue.

  15. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Jediben
      Devil

      Re: Proof that capitalism has to be abandoned for the sake of the world.

      Well the board of my two-berth submarine company is ambivalent about the situation.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Meh

      Re: Proof that capitalism has to be abandoned for the sake of the world.

      Please enlighten us with your equitable, practical, and effective alternative.

    3. Martin Budden
      Headmaster

      Re: Proof that capitalism has to be abandoned for the sake of the world.

      less ≠ fewer

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Proof that capitalism has to be abandoned for the sake of the world.

      What's the point of having a successful economy if you can't sabotage it by taxing anything producing energy efficiently into oblivion?

  16. Rentaguru
    Coat

    Nah

    Can't say I give a sweet fa about the economy either if need be I can rough it on the Queen's swans and homebrew cider. If only they had a free-to-air auction chanel where each day we the public could select one politician at 9am and the method of his torture and death to be broadcast live from 10am to 10pm then I'd be as happy as a pig in sheeet.

    Trouble is the gene pool is so weak new ones would be born faster than they'd be convinced politicking was wrong by my humane methods so as an alternative I suggest we all go bag one for the bonfire this year.

    Mines the one with the attache cape with the hemp noose.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So they do care, then?

    Since Climate Change is, at the end of the day, an economic problem it seems that people do care a lot. That they don't understand the link is a different issue so we have a situation where people care but don't actually realize it. Which isn't that unusual with scientific issues.

    1. kyza

      Re: So they do care, then?

      Well quite.

      The article also seems to be saying that public opinion should be the only driver of how & what governments legislate about.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not about alarmism

    But if we fail to live in harmony with Gaia, we will eventually fail to live at all.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: It's not about alarmism

        ""But if we fail to live in harmony with Gaia, we will eventually fail to live at all."

        I just threw up in my mouth a little"

        Ah, but homo sapiens will always die out. It's just a question of whether this occurs through the demise of homonids in general, or simply that species. That is afterall, the mechanism by which homo sapiens came about in the first place. It's called evolution.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        That's OK

        Just keep sh*tting on your own doorstep.

        You will have bigger problems than throwing up a little, my friend.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: That's OK

            I am amazed to see all these downvotes, can el Reg commentards really all be so ignorant to react in such a negative fashion to the idea of being considerate towards nature?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's not about alarmism

        Gaia takes it up the ass. Oh, you mean the goddess?

      4. Seán

        Re: It's not about alarmism

        Where the fuck else would you vomit?

    2. david 63

      Re: It's not about alarmism

      Posted Wednesday 27th February 2013 11:36 GMT Anonymous Coward

      "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;" - James Lovelock proposer of the Gaia Hypothesis

      A proper scientist. He proposed a hypothesis which was not born out by the facts so he looked for another one.

  19. Tim Elphick
    Alert

    I haven't read the report, I must admit,

    but from the article "The economy ranked highest in concern in 15 countries..." which suggests to me that it discusses the average main fear of each country's population. It seems to draw from this that all other matters are disregarded. I doubt the full report is this simplified, but it does lead to recall the saying about lies, damn lies and the other things.

  20. Tom Paine Silver badge
    Unhappy

    People are very stupid

    ...film at 11.

    Seriously -- come the collapse of civilisation, there's going to be a fantastic once-in-a-species-lifetime chance to squeeze the human population through a nice tight bottleneck, with knuckle-dragging halfwits (that's 85% of the population, at least) being -- oh dear, how sad, so sorry -- stuck on the wrong side of the alive/dead boundary. Or the right side, if you prefer to look at it that way.

    1. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: People are very stupid

      @Tom Paine: unfortunately, come the collapse of civilisation, there's a pretty good chance that the knuckle-dragging halfwits will be beating clever-but-puny el-Reg commentards to a pulp with their baseball bats to take over any available resources.

      Being clever isn't, in and of itself, a survival strategy

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: People are very stupid

        It is if you've hidden all the baseball bats

        1. Mad Mike
          Joke

          Re: People are very stupid

          "It is if you've hidden all the baseball bats"

          Works only if you hide everything but items made from lightweight foam and have cut the "halfwits" arms and legs off!!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm a lazy scumbag

    and I don't have the intelligence to think about the consequences of my actions. So I'm just going to put down any notion of being reasonable and considerate and just shout as loud as I can until those annoying people with brains go away.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm a lazy scumbag

      Excellent, the classic 'everyone else must be an idiot' argument.

      After all, if they weren't stupid, then how could they fail to see the Truth.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I was just trying to fit in

        Apparently having any form of consideration or respect for one's environment is now worthy of the utmost disdain.

        I don't want to live on this planet any more.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: I was just trying to fit in

          "Apparently having any form of consideration or respect for one's environment is now worthy of the utmost disdain.

          I don't want to live on this planet any more."

          You are drawing the wrong conclusion. People aren't saying they don't want to have consideration for one's environment or worry about what's happening. They didn't like the tone of comment and suggesting everyone who doesn't want to instantly move back into a cave, stop driving etc.etc. is a brain dead moron.

          I'm sure the vast majority of people think recycling is a good idea etc.etc. It's just that instead of that, we've got an agenda of vested interests built up in the environmental movement way beyond practicality. Yes, we should make chanegs where we can, but what people object to is this idea we should bankrupt ourselves to try and prevent something (which we may not be able to prevent anyway) possibly happening at some point in the future on not terribly conclusive evidence.

    2. Mad Mike

      Re: I'm a lazy scumbag

      "and I don't have the intelligence to think about the consequences of my actions. So I'm just going to put down any notion of being reasonable and considerate and just shout as loud as I can until those annoying people with brains go away."

      Or, alternatively.

      "You're an arrogant arse who thinks everyone else is dumb and you're Einstein and simply refuses to even listen to counter arguments to you're 'truth'."

      You assume only people supporting your position have brains, hence your last sentence. A superiority complex such as that has to come crashing down sometime!!

  22. 3x2

    Green

    Makes me laugh that, given a choice, in some imaginary election, between 'swindling bankers' and 'green' we would all vote 'swindling banker'. Just how did a movement, on the rise not too long ago, f**k it up so badly?

    1. Katie Saucey
      Unhappy

      Re: Green

      Here in ON CAN I would vote for the banker x2 if I could, even if his middle name was Madoff. Search "ontario's energy plan" I sure you'll see were I'm coming from (and where my taxes go).

  23. The Alpha Klutz
    Megaphone

    why would anyone care?

    establishment man: the climate is changing!

    plebs: oh yeah. we are getting flooded more now, will you pay to protect us?

    establishment man: uuuuhh........ nooooo. but remember, the climate is changing hehe!

    plebs: is there anything we can do about it?

    boss man: not really, but if we charge people for carrier bags at the supermarket, maybe that will stop the climate changing?

    plebs: so there's really no reason to care at all, since you won't help and we can't do anything?

    dictator: that's right, but remember the climate is changing hehe haha boy i love saying it dont i

  24. Martin Budden

    Australia used to care.

    The 2007 election saw a change of government and the biggest reason was the incumbent's refusal to take climate change seriously.

    Of course, since then we've had various politicians screwing up climate change policy, plus a huge GFC or two, so now most people have forgotten that they used to care a lot about climate change.

    Shame none of this was studied for this report.

    1. haloburn
      FAIL

      Re: Australia used to care.

      I thought you're last government got in by promising not to introduce the carbon tax, which was the first thing they did.

      1. Martin Budden
        FAIL

        Re: Australia used to care.

        I'm failing your fail, because that (sort of) happened in the election *after* the one I mentioned.

  25. Leslie Graham

    Climate change will cut your wages

    Whilst it's obviously not true that most people don't care about climate change it obviously IS true that everyone WILL care as soon as climate change starts to affect their standard of living.

    The first thing climate change is going to wreck IS the economy stupid.

    It has already cost thousands of people their jobs in Plainview, Texas just for starters.

    The South East is going to see more and more of these droughts in the coming decades and the North East will see more and more superstorms like Sandy. That is going to cost hundreds of millions of people an awfull lot of money. And then it is going to start getting bad. Then you will hear the denialist cult devotees whinging "Why didn't the scientists warn us?".

  26. Steve Murphy
    Stop

    So why does Lewis and co bother

    So why is there a massive climate change denier industry in the press with spokespeople like Lewis (Fukushima was a triumph of engineering) Page?

    Probably the same reason thy are tobacco companies are always vocally against and regulations that are aimed at protecting children I'd imagine.

    I wonder why Lewis doesn't actually work for big tobacco?

  27. Seán
    Thumb Down

    The Disgusting part of Reg

    This inability to comprehend Climate Change, the fetish for obsolete militarism, and hiring that orloski dimwit. All very amusing but deathly tedious at this point.

    1. Fading Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: The Disgusting part of Reg

      Funny you must be reading a different El-Reg. Comprehension of climate change appears to be much higher here than on other sites (RealClimate, SKS, Guardian to name a few) .

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well it can't be that great - a lot of people here still deny it is even happening, or is a problem!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019