The Shotgun Blog
Monday, December 14, 2009
73% of Canadians want global warming policy delay for economic reasons or doubts over scientific certainty
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy today released a COMPAS poll which shows most Canadians prefer to hold off on signing a global warming treaty in Copenhagen; reasons include concern over the economy and doubts about the sureness of the science.
In practice, few Canadians oppose signing such a treaty under any circumstance (14 per cent) while few also favour going ahead with it (25 per cent).
The largest cluster (51 per cent) favours postponement of signing--either until we can be more confident that the global economy is coming out of recession (25 per cent) or that there is strong agreement that the scientific research attributing climate change to humans is fully objective (26 per cent).
Thus, among Canadians with an opinion on the issue, 73 per cent favour postponing a decision (57 per cent) or not signing at all (16 per cent) while 28 per cent advocate signing a treaty at Copenhagen.
“Some doubt about when the global economy will recover from the recession and some doubt about the scientific arguments behind the push for a treaty on global warming are the chief drivers in causing Canadians to want the federal government to postpone signing a treaty,” observed Conrad Winn, president of COMPAS and principal investigator on the poll.
The poll was conducted across Canada on November 28, 2009; sample size was 1,000 and is deemed accurate to within approximately three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
To download a complete copy of the COMPAS poll and questions, click here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on December 14, 2009 | Permalink
Why am I not surprised that the interpretation of the poll fundamentally misrepresents the question asked? People were told in the preamble to the question that signing the treaty would mean that Canada would give away control of energy policy and how Canadian tax dollars are spent. So if people are against signing, it could well be because they don't like Canada surrendering control of implementation of the policy, not the policy itself. If they really wanted to know what Canadians thought about how the economy or the state of scientific knowledge affects their support for the agreement, they would have asked without the biasing preamble.
It should also be noted that the wording of the scientific worry strongly suggests to the respondents that current research is not objective. So there is a double biasing of the results here.
So what the poll really tells us is that only 14% of Canadians have a problem with Canada giving away sovereignty over energy policy and how Canadian tax dollars are spent. Most of the rest of us are willing to do it in some circumstances. More than a quarter of us are ready to do it right now. And what this really means is Canadians are dumb. Did we need another poll to tell us this?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-12-14 9:58:01 AM
Fact Check is right. The question is biased. The results would probably be completely different if the question had been stated to only reflect opinions regarding climate change.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-14 10:12:12 AM
since thermomaniacs theory crumbled to pieces in the days after the poll, now we would see even more dammning results, the church of climatology has to change the name again from global worming to climate change and now environment change.
And if this cult doesn't bring enough money in there is a backup plan: oxygen depletion and ocean acidification.
Long live wealth redistribution!
Posted by: Albert | 2009-12-14 10:34:02 AM
Climate Chang is what you call Global Warming when your Global Warming conference is snowed out.
Record Low in Edmunton by 10 degrees
Up to 3 feet of snow in Utah - 13 Dec 09
Four feet of global warming at Lake Tahoe - 12 Dec 09
"It's DUMPING on the mountain right now!" says their website.
Record low in Seattle - 11 Dec 09
Record low in Seattle - 10 Dec 09
Record low in Seattle - 9 Dec 09
Record snowfall in Central Wisconsin; storm continues - 9 Dec 09
Strongest winter storm in 30 years in Iowa and Illinois - 8 Dec 09
Snowfall in Arizona more than 4 times previous record! - 8 Dec 09
Snow hits Australia one week away from Summer November 27, 2008
Facts are annoying things to the Globalony Alarmists.
Posted by: jd | 2009-12-14 10:56:13 AM
The media's double standard in the field of climate "science" get more obvious by the day. Believe me, if Edmonton had experienced record warm temperatures this month, it would be front page news for days on end, and would be presented as clear evidence of global warming. Just like Toronto's warm summer was a few years back.
But when the data hints at an opposite conclusion, there's nothing but silence on the issue.
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-12-14 12:24:32 PM
Imagine! - We are one step away from levying a tax on the emissions of CO2 worldwide; a tax that each and every consumer will pay through the increased cost of energy priced into everything we produce and buy. The EPA just recently rendered and endangerment finding on CO2; a gas that is an essential building block to all plant life on the globe, based on what appears to be a fraudulent hypothesis. Carbon Dioxide is a gas that is soluble in water, and one that forms the very base of the food chain in our oceans; it is a compound that each and every living mammal on the planet exhales as part of its very existence. And yet a group of scientists, who for purely self-serving and political reasons, have apparently embarked on a crusade to manufacture evidence that the world is on the verge of an climate apocalypse and that CO2 is the hobgoblin of greenhouse gases, when in fact it represents only 4% of the total GHG’s in our atmosphere.
Somebody needs to stand up and tell the 20,000 attendees hob-knobbing in Copenhagen that the science is far from settled. It appears that their vaunted IPCC scientists and many lead researchers are complicit in advancing a fraudulent premise based on falsified data; this amid a publishing environment that can only be described as the equivalent of a scientific politburo that buried anything counter to their own conclusions. It is also instructive to note that the IPCC is almost exclusively dependent on these same scientists, whose research data, proxies and conclusions provide the very foundation that supports the claim we've been hearing for years: “Yes!... the science is settled.” I truly hope in light of this recent e-mail controversy, that the narrative as now shifted to a more objective discussion based on empirical debate and the scientific method.
The entire world is watching this process and before the world leaders consign the rest of us to the economic equivalent of a pre-industrialized existence, they had better take note that they will be held accountable. If they proceed to push flawed policy initiatives based on fraudulent research; if our august politicians cannot demonstrate the courage to approach the science from a critical perspective; if all they can do is read the Summary for Policy-makers (SPM), a summary that is largely the product of political considerations and written by Special Interest and the Environmental Lobby, then maybe it's time for sweeping changes in our entire political landscape. Maybe it is time to assert certain aspects of the preamble (... to change, alter or abolish...) the mentality that exists in our current political dogma and dismantle the governmental agencies and bureaucracies that are trying to control so much of our daily lives.
Posted by: Gregson | 2009-12-14 12:42:20 PM
Why are we still talking about this climate change hoax? It's been debunked. Even UFOs, Bigfoot, the Yeti, and Ontario's social conscience have more solid evidence backing them. I'm more afraid of a Zombie infestation as the idea of "global warming."
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-14 2:07:27 PM
Questions could have been
Do you want to save the world or let it become uninhabitable in 5 years?
Do you want to give $1000+ a year to some lying, stealing, hypocritical people who think you are stupid?
Up to now, its been question #1, people are starting to understand its really question #2.
Posted by: Scott | 2009-12-14 3:05:22 PM
I'd say that the public knew both questions from the start of this "debate." Once the "climate change" issue emerged, opinion fell into deeply entrenched and defended partisan camps. Liberals supported it, while conservatives opposed it. The former tried every trick in the book to overcome the latter, including use of the term "denier" and "international reputation" and "peer-review" to win support. The latter, on the other hand, won by dragging the discussion out and letting the Warmers undermine themselves defending a horrendous plan of wealth transfer with barely credible science, which itself crashed in Climategate. Mr. Harper led the opposition to Kyoto. He should be praised by all for his wise strategy and tactics in preventing and ultimately thwarting this scam. Millions owe their livelihoods to him.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-14 4:02:55 PM
re Fact Check and Charles
You guys still don't get it? Would a reading of the proposed Copenhagen draft treaty help? YES, we would lose our sovereignty rights over environmental policy to a "foreign" UN authority. Even Americans wouldn't agree to surrendering these rights. Also, if the science is not settled, why waste TRILLIONS of dollars trying to control CO2? Most lay people are seeing global warming/climate change for what it truly is - an immense effort for creating a "world" government that will determine, for the developed countries, how we live in the future by forcing us to live like in the past, before industrialization. So, instead of wasting that money on a science of "dubious" value, I'd rather, using our technological prowess, see the money spent wisely on the environmental situations (good and bad that we have done and CAN control. You know, the stuff we KNOW about! I have a problem with the IPCC and the climate change movement in general. How can they "predict" the future when we can't even predict with certainty the weather next week. That's a fact! Remember, the IPCC's models (biased for a CO2 signal) only look at "potential" scenarios - that's not proof! Earth's rich historical record provides plenty of examples (PROOFS!) in the past of warmer and colder time periods with much higher CO2 concentrations.
So, I'm glad the questions were put forth in the manner as in the poll. No one will question the need to help the environment, but a global environmental policy run by a global government that usurps a nation's sovereignty will turn most people off! Let an INFORMED public make that choice.
Remember too, that the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING and ALWAYS WILL!!!
Posted by: Rick Skeptic | 2009-12-14 5:06:38 PM
Have to love the denial of climate change.
Posted by: Rider Fan | 2009-12-14 6:06:00 PM
Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Pollution
The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast.
That is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence.
No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department?
Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so.
We can do nothing until we have a DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)
Posted by: Lawrence Baker | 2009-12-14 7:28:23 PM
I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. I invite you to my web-pages devoted to raising awareness on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.html
Posted by: David Scott | 2009-12-14 8:10:52 PM
I'm quite certain that if people were raising cattle in Greenland today, that would doubtless be taken as conclusive proof of global warming. In contrast, historical records clearly show that Viking settlers raised cattle in Greenland around 1000 A.D., which any sensible person would consider to be sound evidence that the world was much warmer back then and that any present run-up in temperatures is nothing unusual.
But not according to the Global Warming believers. Apparently, the Medieval Warming Period was an isolated incident at best and a complete myth at worst. After all, Micheal Mann's "hockey stick" got rid of that annoying period in history, didn't it?
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-12-14 8:38:20 PM
Lawrence...Lawrence,'Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Pollution'?
This is just confusion. We are all against pollution, e.g. http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
But as any high school graduate should know, CO2 is not pollution, it is essential for life, plants thrive with more. Google Freeman Dyson and see his comments, e.g. "The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems." [harm like ignoring the real pollution that you mentioned]
And David, get real, rowboats in San Francisco? No ocean science will support that sci-fi scenario.
no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise:
Posted by: sdcougar | 2009-12-14 9:51:39 PM
Maybe Al Gore is planning to use a row boat to get to his new condo in San Francisco since it would be below sea level according to Al Gore.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2009-12-14 11:26:53 PM
Mr. Harper should be praised in the highest terms for his stand against the Climate Change Hoax. He saved millions of jobs and the lifetime savings of the entire population. When others were willing to sacrifice the people to this hoax - except Ontario which was exempted from paying for short-sighted political reasons - Harper stood firm. Deftly out-maneuvering his opponents (an easy task) he held out long enough for the entire scam to self-destruct. He is a hero.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-15 1:52:14 AM
Calm down. This was a very misleading question, that's all.
I am actually very skeptical of global warming science. I also believe that the solutions being proposed by our gov't officials are ridiculous and will make matters worse. We need to allow markets to work this out (if there indeed is something to work out).
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-15 5:22:00 AM
Quick and radical changes are possible, and we proved it in WWII. We can probably solve global warming with a lot less effort than what was needed to win that war. Our grandparents knew the real meaning of sacrifice. Don't our grandchildren deserve the same?
Posted by: Canada Guy | 2009-12-15 6:55:19 AM
Canada Guy, I'll remind you that World War Two with its rationing and prohibitions on car purchases etc. only lasted six years! By that time, let me assure you that most people had had quite enough of living under a centrally planned economy and were eager to move on. My parents lived through those years and the end of the war couldn't come soon enough for them. In the case of global warming, I think you're optimistic in the extreme when you suggest that "solving" global warming would require less effort, or less time. I think that the rationing and such would be more or less permanent. Kind of like living in the Soviet Union.
If the greenies are serious about their goals, I do not for a minute think that achieving an 85% cut in our production of carbon would be very simple at all. Why don't you try this for yourself and lead by example? Maybe you could have daily reports from the super-insulated cubicle that you would be living in to tell us how much fun a greener world can be.
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-12-15 7:15:56 AM
I want Alberta to change its motto from "Wild Rose Country" to "Proud to have been the strongest resister of the Climate Change Hoax." Note the past tense because the whole thing came to an end.
We should thank Dr. Suzuki, Vice-President Gore and Mr. Chretien, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton, Mr. Dion, and Ms. May. Their scare-tactics, secret backroom deals, faulty science and scientists, and fanatical devotion to the stupendously flawed Kyoto wealth-transfer scheme, undermined any credibility in their side of the climate changed debate. It made Mr. Harper's (God Bless Him) job much easier. if there is any "climate criminal" it is not him. The ones mentioned above ought to be so.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-15 7:53:24 AM
You ever hear of the black market?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-15 11:36:46 AM
For all climate change denial fans here, did you know that climate change does NOT mean meteorological change?
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-16 8:56:17 AM
Did you warmers out there know that all the money in the world cannot stop climate change?
Even if the science was perfect, it does not automatically point to a wealth transfer solution. Raising taxes will only deter people and incur opposition. If only you people realized that humans had the power to act. Antagonizing them slows the process.
In any case it doesn't matter anymore. The science has been debunked as fraudulent. For those of us who opposed this scam from the start, we can pat ourselves on the back for successfully preventing the scam of the millennium. Our hero is Mr. Harper, whose clear-eyed vision and effective delaying strategy made it all possible.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-16 11:08:48 AM
Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
Posted by: davidbaer | 2010-01-27 1:59:25 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.