The propaganda is working, Comrade!

There will be those who insist this shows we really must do something, jump off the economic cliff. The rational will note something different:

Three-quarters of people in the world’s wealthiest nations believe humanity is pushing the planet towards a dangerous tipping point and support a shift of priorities away from economic profit, according to a global survey.

The Ipsos Mori survey for the Global Commons Alliance (GCA) also found a majority (58%) were very concerned or extremely concerned about the state of the planet.

Four in five respondents said they were willing to step up and do more to regenerate the global commons.

The actual report:

Among G20 countries, 73% of people believe
Earth is close to “tipping points” because of
human action. People in Indonesia (86%),
Turkey (85%), Brazil (83%), Mexico (78%) and
South Africa (76%) have a significantly higher
awareness of the risk than people in the United
States (60%), Japan (63%), Great Britain (65%)
and Australia (66%).
Across the G20, 58% of people are extremely
worried or very worried about the state of the
global commons. Concern is highest in Turkey
(79%), Mexico (77%), Brazil (74%), and India (70%).
Concern is lowest in Saudi Arabia (26%), Japan
(44%), United States (45%), and Australia (46%).

The propaganda is working, Comrade! With every media outlet screaming, for decades, that Ecodammerung is right now lots of people believe Ecodammerung is right now.

Are people aware of the scale of
transformation required in the next
decade to protect the climate and
other global commons?
No. While 59% of people in G20 countries
acknowledge that there is scientific consensus
that rapid energy transition is needed in the next
decade, just 8% of people are aware of consensus
on the need for sweeping societal changes over
that period to safeguard the global commons.

But they’re not entirely insane. Sport out the climate change thing with fewer emissions and the rest of it can bugger off.

40 thoughts on “The propaganda is working, Comrade!”

  1. “Tipping points” is pressure group propaganda anyway designed to increase the fear factor and promote action. So again we are being manipulated for watermelon ends. Glad to see a degree of resistance.

    On firm climate risk calls I note a degree of scepticism from many on whether the state will actually go through with the spending required as they know it can’t be cheap and won’t be easy. If they make it even remotely clear that the people will pay whilst China and India carry on regardless it is likely the house of cards will crash.

    Have the Greens overplayed their hand?

  2. consensus on the need for sweeping societal changes

    Fuck the fuck off, you totalitarian shitbags.

    very worried about the state of the global commons

    Funny that this ‘concern’ is so concentrated in badly-run nations looking for handouts.

  3. One wonders what proportion of the “scientifically literate” population (excluding those whose livelyhood depends on “Climate Science”) are much concerned about Climate Doom?

    ISTR that the handful of MPs who voted against the Climate Bill were the only ones in Parliament with scientific or engineering backgrounds…

  4. The Pedant-General

    Engineering especially. We’re the ones that do the basic fag packet sums that ground us in the real world.

  5. It’s rather easy to answer a question like “Do you think we should care for our children?” in the affirmative.
    Except that we’ve just had the example that the older generation doesn’t give a damn.

  6. Peter Lilley on voting against the climate change bill in 2008:

    Lilley said: “I wasn’t voting against the science. I’ve never disputed the science at all. I remember thinking, ‘here’s no point in hanging around the chamber and seeing this humiliating result come out’, so I went out to have a drink in the bar, and on the way I looked out the window and it was snowing in October.

    It rarely snows in Westminster. It rarely snows in the UK in October. This was the only time it snowed in London in October. Although Lilley did seem to dispute the science a few years later when I attended a presentation on it in the HoC by Prof Lindzen, IIRC.

  7. There are quite a few cases where a journo interviews people (college students are the best for this, IMO) and YES! they are VERY concerned about global warming, we HAVE to act now! When asked how much they’re willing to sacrifice to save the planet, umm, well, a few bucks a month, maybe.

  8. Well this shows the system is working. The problem with democracy is that a ignorant vote is worth as much as an informated one so the valueless opinion of millions of non scientists are worth more than a few thousand scientists who have studied the problem. Our preferred solution is to try to inform the public of the science and its consequences and hope that democratically elected governments will follow them. The public understands the need for an energy transition which is scientifically justified and skeptical of demands for socialism which are not.

    The Romans believed that crises needed a dictator. China has one and will do fine.

    India is a basket case and beyond my understanding.

  9. @James
    This rather assumes that the scientists who have studied the problem haven’t decided in advance what the answer is and massaged the data and any other evidence, including their models, in support of it and ignored everything else

  10. “…the need for an energy transition which is scientifically justified…”

    No it isn’t. The effect of the extra <4% that human activity adds to the plus side of the natural CO2 cycle is negligible and completely eclipsed by natural variation. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, they sometimes run in the same direction but often do the opposite. We know that the climate alarmists are wrong because they are always wrong. They have been consistently wrong for the last thirty years. Even if the CO2 nonsense were true, Western nations doing there energy transition while the rest of the world does nothing would have no effect whatsoever. Non of this is difficult to understand.

  11. Did we just get a seagull* visit from another first-name-only anti-Brexit anti-covid-treatment climate-catastrophist?

    * Fly in, shit on everything, fly out again

  12. Tipping point? Meh.

    How many years is it since Prince Charles told us we had six months to save the world, or whatever it was?

    I’m fed up with listening to these people.

    But I suppose they won’t go away just yet – what a shame.

  13. Actually I’ve been hoping for The Day After Tomorrow to come true, allowing me to live as a bandit king in the frozen wastelands of Britain, slaughtering the weak and soy-addled for japes.

  14. I’m having serious issues coming to terms with the fact that I used the wrong there. Everyone is going to think that I don’t know the difference between there, their and they’re, I’m not sure if I can bear the shame, I’ll have to go and find some wear to hide.

  15. The climate catastrophe is going to kill you

    The climate catastrophe is going to KILL you

    THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHE IS GOING TO KILL YOU.

    Now, how do you feel about the climate catastrophe?

  16. As the debacle in Afghanistan demonstrates stupid decisions do eventually come back to bite you in the posterior, even if it is decades later. This climate stuff will unwind itself at some point. It’s just a question of when, and how much damage will it have done in the meantime. Ditto Covid.

    Whatever else you say about the Taliban they don’t seem overly concerned about their carbon footprint, and I recall they’ve been serious anti-vaxxers in the past.

  17. @starfish as a professional scientist I can assure you that is not how it works. The are no examples that I can think of where a large scientific consensus like this one has been wrong. The scientific method works. Planes fly, quantum mechanics explains transistors and anthropologic warming is a fact.

    Politicians and others find this inconvenient and want to pick their result. It does not work like that.

    As a regular reader here I am in favour of a carbon tax. We did it for the ozone hole and it solved the problem. Hard science and economic science working together.

  18. James

    You’re sampling from the wrong box, squire.

    You’re making the assumption that white man causes heat death of world is science.

    It isn’t.

    If it were science, Greta Thunberg wouldn’t exist. There’d be no space for her nor for similar cretins.

    The science – or, rather, the observations – may or may not show warming.

    Whether they do or not, the rest is agenda-driven modeling.

  19. @James…

    “Planes fly” – correct, because the theory is well understood and easily predictable.

    “Quantum mechanics…” – appears correct despite nobody really understanding it, but it appears to produce predictable enough results to allow us to manufacture functional transistors.

    “AGW” – ?? Cherry-picking results from dozens of shonky models shows that we’re all going to fry. Except that we haven’t yet, and, in fact are very unlikely to. Their predictive “skill” is about as good as that displayed by “Mystic Meg” – they can’t even accurately backcast FGS! The only warming that we’re seeing is that produced by “adjustments” to the historical record that miraculously shows that we’re getting warmer – ie “fudging the figures”.

  20. A CBC article said Climate Crisis was the most important issue in a survey they did for upcoming Canadian election.
    Amazingly they interviewed a hotel owner complaining about how this years wildfires had lead to cancellations which was a ‘major concern’ and ‘something needed to be done’ despite the fact the govt has either closed or strangled his business for the last 2 summers.
    Amusingly they also had a report that the First Nations had pointed out that their traditional land management practices would help and that the recommendations from the report on the last bad wildfires in 2018 had not been implemented

  21. My understanding of the scientific method is that if your hypothesis is contradicted by observations it means that it is untrue.

  22. Planes flew well before the science was sorted out. Not a great example.

    Climate science is at the same stage as 18th century chemistry. At that point scientists were habitually wrong about pretty much *everything*.

    It is quite false to assert that it is a mature science when the basics are still in dispute. Their calculations on CO2 remind me of the calculations on phlogiston.

    There’s plenty of other sciences at the same point, I’m not picking on climate. Psychiatry for example. Or the ridiculous rapid changes of advice we get on diet, where x is bad, only to be good (eggs, dairy, animal fat, cholesterol).

    There is no mystical “science”. There are subjects we know a lot about. And ones we do not.

  23. Ummm.. James… You seem to forget that all the things we consider Great truths nowadays were against the consensus of the “Professional Scientists” at the time. Heretical, even…

    And the problem is with Professional Scientists. Most of them pretend they’re Newtons or Einsteins, while in fact they’re products of an academic process that produces tosspots like Sage³ and even allows such pieces of offal to teach in the Halls of Knowledge.
    And the fun bit is that all great advancements in modern science have been made by “Dillettantes” and engineers, not once by the Establishment of Professional Scientists.

    Professional Scientists flocked to and sort-of-retrained to “Climate Scientists”. Because that is where the money is and grants are. ( I once again point to His Sageacity as a living example..)
    But when I look into the academic background of the people who make up the “Consensus” I see preciously few people whose career indicates an ability to handle complex statistics and even more complex models. In fact… quite a large fraction of them have at some point proven they are rather bad at advanced mathematics.

    Someone still has to give me a convincing answer how a degree in Social Sciences, Anthropology, Economics, or Arts in general qualifies someone to handle n-dimensional probability matrices. Or fluid dynamics. Or dynamic heat transfer. Or anything else you need to work with something as complicated as atmospheric models. Y’know… the ones that get the weather wrong two times out of three for the next week… Let alone over something like a decade…
    And last time I checked climate is still defined as the running average of weather.
    Y’know.. the bit that most “experts” get wrong within the first three sentences they utter on the subject?

    So yeah.. Yay! Professional Scientists… Many impressed, much times respec.
    Makes me proud to have gotten out of the Game as soon as I could, and simply be a Dillettante and do something useful here and there.

  24. Bloke in North Korea (Germany Province)

    James,

    You’ve come to the wrong place to say anything like “the overwhelming majority of professional scientists x”.

    Just too many professional scientists here to pull that one.

  25. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ “Planes fly” – correct, because the theory is well understood and easily predictable.”

    Excellent. Can you point me to the explanation of how planes fly upside down, please?

  26. @ James
    We did not impose a carbon tax to heal the ozone layer – we banned CFC sprays (except in China which paid lip-service to the ban but did not enforce it). The problem with a carbon tax is that China consumes more coal than the rest of the world combined and produces roughly one-third of the man-made CO2 in the world and China does and will do nothing for the benefit of “round-eyes” (Hitler was less racist than the Han Chinese: ask any Tibetan or Uighur or member of a racial minority within China itself.)
    If you want an economic cure for AGW, then it has to be, or include, a world boycott of chinese manufactures.

  27. Can you point me to the explanation of how planes fly upside down, please?

    Most lift comes from the angle of attack of a wing, not its shape. Some stunt planes have symmetrical cross-section wings precisely because they need to fly upside down as often as they do right side up; all their lift is from angle of attack.

    You can get lift from a brick if you point it at the appropriate angle into an airstream.

  28. @bloke in North Korea. Thank you for your useful comment.

    It is as well I did not say that then! I said ‘who have studied the problem’. The opinion of other scientists in this forum including myself are as worthlessly ignorant as the man in the street’s.

    The key point is the validity of one’s opinion of the science is determined by one’s knowledge and study of the science in question not one’s intelligence or skill at other things. I suggest that most trained scientists could get some degree of competance with a couple of months study but a couple of Google searches does not really add much value.

  29. Apparently there’s a real difference between doing a metrology degree and a physics degree specialising in fluid dynamics in atmospheric systems

  30. “I suggest that most trained scientists could get some degree of competance with a couple of months study.”

    Damn… So a Sociologist, or a Historian, or a Political Economist can grok in months what takes some very smart people years of study and practice to get somewhat useful at?
    Damn those Humanities gods.. They’re something else, eh?

    I suggest a couple months would maybe qualify them for freshmen exams, if ( and that’s a big if…) they don’t fail the maths tests outright.

  31. James-global warming is lying marxist crap designed to ruin western economies with trillions in costs while the marxist greenfreaks CCP mates take no notice. You can spew all the bollocks you like. Millions of ord people aren’t paying a fortune to give up working heating and petrol cars to be ruined and mass impoverished by well-off eco-scum. That conclusion will be tried in the street if need be.

    Which is why Blojob Johnson and the rest of the worlds political shite are desperate to get CCP-style social credit tyranny in place. That is the only way they think they can force greenfreak bullshit on us all. You are just an intellectual stooge offering cod “reasoning” on behalf of such evil.

    As for bullshit polls Tim–they aren’t worth the time wasted on them. Ask your usual middle class Marxist mugs the usual loaded questions and there is your mass concensus of bullshit.

  32. Why do they use that single first name thing? Why not pick a pseudonym like the rest of us, for humourous effect? Why give a clue like a giant red light?

    And as to how aircraft fly, the bicycle engineers who pulled off the trick were not scientists, but they used science. The official effort of Langley went straight into the Potomac.

  33. If the UK stopped ALL CO2 emissions (326mmT in 2020) it would reduce the temperature by a whopping 0.0018c.
    This however would be quickly replaced by the Chinese, who in 2020 brought on stream almost one coal fired power station per week.

  34. I remember, as a small boy, making planes that flew. Flew well. I knew nothing of the ‘science’.
    And the wing cross section was a rectangle.
    The technology was no newer than the Pharaohs.
    Probably most kids have done the same, they used to sell balsa-wood flatpacks alongside the Beano and Buster.
    Yet school trotted out the nonsense about the bulged upper wing surface. Shown a balsa chuck glider, the physics master had no answer. “That’s different”.And the kindly, “Yes, I know, but you must say this in an exam”.

    On the subject of science, try finding a maths/mechanics textbook that explains how a thrown object will move, neglecting air resistance) in an ellipse. No, not a parabola. ‘Science’, pah!

    There’s a nice scene in Carl Sagan’s “Contact” (the book) where a priest and a scientist discuss faith, and the knowledge that the giant pendulum will stop before busting their heads. The scientist still flinches. The faith was weak in that one.

  35. The are no examples that I can think of where a large scientific consensus like this one has been wrong.

    You need to learn about Alfred Wegener, though I’m sure there are dozens of similar examples.

    An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.
    Max Planck (1858-1947), Scientific Autobiography

    Usually summarised as “science advances one funeral at a time”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *