sarnian, clearly didn't read or didn't understand the survey ..

"When an operationalised criterion for attributing strong scepticism or disbelief is applied across these four survey items (8, 9, 12, 14), requiring a consistent disbeliever or sceptical response for each of these items, the total proportion of respondents falls to 1.2%, or 38 individuals. When a less stringent criterion is adopted, requiring a no response to question 8, and a disbeliever or sceptic response to at least two of the three questions 9, 12, and 14, the proportion of survey respondents who could be characterised as disbelievers or strong sceptics becomes 5.8%, or 180 individuals."

So you can see the figures are being strongly influenced by the technique used .. as you would expect when the survey is commissioned by the Dept of Climate Change, and why would the surveyor not get the result the customer is asking for?

So the 5.8% are in fact those who are skeptical or disbelieve that climate changes .. nothing to do with land clearing, or CO2 influences or AGW .. but whether the climate changes at all. Well, I certainly believe the climate changes, always has always will .. now is CO2 assisting? I doubt it and remain skeptical.

look at questions 8,9 12 and 14 ..

Q8. As far as you know, do you personally think the world's climate is changing?

Q9. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion? (this is the only Q that addresses cause. Natural and manmade is 45.8% .. which is reasonable

Q12a. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about climate change? *I am certain that climate change is really happening, agree, strongly agree etc.

Q14. When, if at all, do you think Australia/Britain will start feeling the effects of climate change? (How is this relevant? Except to skew the weighting)

I believe that is an own goal sarnian?

Amicus, the framing is out of context with today's debate - unless you're an alarmist looking for hysterical reinforcement.

http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/Interim%20report%20-%20final%20document%20-18-04-2011-2_30pm%281%29.pdf

NEWSFLASH

A cold loving species begins to *colonize* the NORTH Island of NZ.
http://tinyurl.com/3d2pgx6

Add in the series of unusually cold day’s we've experienced this winter.

Conclusion: Holy Moses! it can only mean,we’re headed for a new ice age!

Rich2 has confirmed that he has no science to back the AGW assertion. Human emissions have no significant effect on climate.

We know that , because there is no science to say otherwise, despite the outlay of billions of dollars on research.

The astounding aspect of this is that a lot of research has been done which has an implied assumption of CAGW, and the warmists point to this as proof. The only attempt at a scientific basis is the discredited IPCC’s unscientific assertion that it is “very likely”. A guess, is no substitute for science.

I will set down some samples of what I mean by a short statement of the settled science:

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. With a natural variation of volume in the cycle of 10%, the human emissions have no significance.

If the assertion of AGW were correct the scientists would have found a hotspot in the troposphere. Despite their efforts this has not been found to exist, because the effect of human emissions is negligible.

The increasing proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to come from human emissions which cause global warming. Over the past 12 years, temperature has plateaued and started to drop, despite the increasing CO2.

Bonmot has already stated that he will not support his assertions with science. His reasons are that he does not want to, and he does not have to. Yet he continues to post baseless assertions.

Sarnian has yet to post anything but pointless rants.

When will the alarmists accept that the polls show that we are aware of the truth, and the politicians will in the end have to acknowledge that they are poll driven, and abandon the AGW scam?

Sarnian, did you see the Lowy Institute Study released today on Climate Change?

Wow, and I know how influenced your thinking is by polls, particularly on Climate Change.

"only 41 per cent think the issue is a serious and pressing problem, down five points from last year.", so even last year, the alarmists were in a minority, with all the government's weight, funded committees, all the left wing, Fairfax and the ABC, media being onside, all the millions spent on CSIRO and BOM to be on the bandwagon .. yet, still the majority of Australians, your countrymen and women, thinks it's not an issue

So 59% do not think it is a serious or pressing problem, so what's your thoughts on that then?

It's clearly a consensus of Australians who do not think Climate Change is a serious or pressing problem ..

To think otherwise, would surely be "denial" ..?

Now that the numbers have flipped over, and all your arguments to date have been about majority thought as the guide, then surely you're now a skeptic. (Actually, you should have been a skeptic last year .. you'll probably suggest that scientists know better, but let's face it, they haven't convinced everyone have they?)

I would say that's a complete reinterpretion of the actual poll there Amicus.

From the release:
"Support for the most aggressive form of action slipped five
points from last year, with 41% saying ‘global warming is
a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking
steps now even if this involves significant costs.’ This option
now shares the same level of support as the intermediate
proposition that ‘the problem of global warming should be
addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with
the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’
(40%). Support for this option is steady with last year, but is
almost double from 2006 when just 24% held this view and
68% supported taking the most aggressive form of action."

I don't know about you, but that seems to be over 80% support for action to me. Just that 40% don't think it's that pressing yet.Using 'or' instead of 'and' changes the interpretation somewhat doesn't it?

Although the sceptical position is increasing:
"Support for the most sceptical position that ‘until we are sure
that global warming is really a problem, we should not take
any steps that would have economic costs’ is up six points
to 19% and has nearly tripled since 2006 when just 7% of Australians held this view. Support for this option increases
with age with just 11% of 18 to 29 year olds holding this
view compared with 28% of Australians 60 years of age
and older."

..but mainly with the oldies. Still it's a bit different to believing they are in the majority eh? (even with the oldies)

Bugsy, I heard a representative on the radio when that was released, I must admit it was as good an attempt at spin as I have ever heard. The guy was clearly trying to "reframe" the message.

He twisted and turned .. so I thought, who are these guys ..

I went and looked at who is on the board of the Lowy Institute, OMG Prof Ross Garnault, right so this is going to be objective is it? Of course it isn't.

I haven't read the whole report, but expect to find the techniques leaning towards the response they wanted. People rarely do surveys objectively, there is always a customer with a desired outcome, why would you not deliver what they want?

The questions are framed professionally to get the correct response.

Better polls are those that truly are independent, not like that garbage sarnian turned up commissioned by the Dept of Climate Change.

So the Lowy Institute I believe, were not expecting the result they got and tried to turn the message.

"A LEADING climate change advocate maintains public sentiment for climate change action is improving despite a poll showing support has dropped to a record low."

A record low, but support is improving .. huh?

It's down but it's up ..?

Do you wonder why Australian BS detectors are all going off about now, alarmists treat them as idiots, and wonder why their message is being roundly rejected by the community.

The way things are going, the science no longer matters, people are angry at being lied to and BS'd constantly, eventually they tire of fools and reject everything they say.

maybe I'm wrong, happens sometimes