The Shotgun Blog
Monday, June 23, 2008
God save the green?
Are Brits better informed than Canadians, smarter, or just more sceptical?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference God save the green?:
I like the way they always mention that those who are skeptical are less educated than the ones who agree with the hype. It's a ploy to embarass the proles into getting in line with the enlightened ones.
It's always easier to trick your peers because they tend to trust each other. It's sort of like those pyramid schemes that spread through the Christian community. Con artists who infiltrate a congregation usually have easy pickings.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-23 11:26:39 AM
I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a consistent Canadian response to Kyoto as yet. Ontarians, typically, claim to speak for the whole and seek to rush it through as fast as they can because they were exempted. Albertans, also typically, have led the resistance to Kyoto because they know their resources will be hijacked to pay for it. This reflects itself in federal politics, where the Ontario-backed Liebral Party is mad about Kyoto, while the Alberta-backed Conservatives seek a more practical response. Hopefully, the latter prevails.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-23 11:31:04 AM
LOL!!! Talk about bad journalism!
After all the talk about how supposedly "majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans" they then give us the real poll results. They tell us that "six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change'." Note that one could agree that "many" experts question it if one thinks that only 10% do. "Many" is a very vague term. But agreeing that "many" EXPERTS question it does not mean that they, the interviewee, also question it. One can draw no conclusion about what the average Briton thinks about the causes of global warming from that question.
Next we are told that "that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'." This is consistent with someone who says "sometimes I think it is not so bad, but most of the time I know better." Again, a vague question that means nothing. Just as it is absurd to conclude that because Mother Theresa "sometimes" doubted the existence of heaven or God she was an atheist, it is absurd to conclude from this poll that even 40% of Britons think climte change is not so bad.
The story is just an example of how bad polling can be done and how badly it can be reported. What do Briton's REALLY think about climate change? Who knows? Certainly not these polsters.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-06-23 11:32:15 AM
FC, you are probably right about the quality of the data and how little can be concluded from it.
This kind of information is not needed to argue the point that governments are not capable of doing anything about climate change even if something should be done about it.
Posted by: TM | 2008-06-23 12:08:45 PM
Imagine how much research money could be saved if we just did opinion polls instead of wasting time with "science" and "research".
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-06-23 12:17:08 PM
We'll see what Britons think of this next time there's an election.
If the trend over the past several months is an indication, most Britons are punishing the politicians involved in dubious tax-grabbing schemes.
Without doing a poll, I would venture to guess when push comes to shove, most people believe that they themselves are best qualifies to make decisions as to how to spend their money.
The pendulum is starting to swing away from the big-government, utopian totalitarian visions ... of which the Green Scam is the latest apparition.
I trust only one person with my money. Me.
Not you. Not the carbon units in the bureaucracy.
Me. Myself. I.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-06-23 12:18:33 PM
I dont understand why the Brits dont like being taxed on nothing....for nothing. Seems to be welcomed here in BC.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-06-24 12:05:14 AM
Fact Check is right about the quality of journalism that surrounds the climate change issue. It is nothing short of scandalous.
There is no scientific consensus that the world is on a long-term warming trend. There is no consensus that humans cause climate change or can divert its course.
But most in the manstream media do not reflect any of this scientific debate over climate. They totally buy into the absurd scare stories from environmentalists and promote the nonsensical remedies from politicans (hello Harper, Dion, Layton, May) who pretend that they have a plan to stop climate change or global warming or both.
Most media are fools. It is best to ignore them.
Posted by: JMD | 2008-06-24 5:55:26 AM
DP wrote: "I like the way they always mention that those who are skeptical are less educated than the ones who agree with the hype. It's a ploy to embarass the proles into getting in line with the enlightened ones."
No doubt that's part of it, DP; those on the bleeding edge of activism are quick to paint themselves as the pinnacle of social and cultural evolution. However, to take the broader view, this is merely a sign of two things: that a) most people with post-secondary education have been educated beyond their intelligence; and b) we've got a long way to go to restore the balance of ideas and opinions in our universities. I'm not sure it'll even be possible until most of the boomers retire.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-24 7:21:21 AM
The media aren't fools, JMD. If they print scurrilous stories lacking in scientific or intellectual rigour, it's because their readership is less interested in such things than shocking headlines and sensational hype. In short, the people are the real fools.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-24 7:24:33 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.