Climate change survey says 83% willing to make sacrifices
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More than 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a serious threat and are willing to make sacrifices to combat it, a survey by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) showed today.
Just 17 per cent of the 1,000 people polled were not prepared to change their travel habits to tackle the climate change problem.
Of the rest, all thought that climate change was either a serious or very serious threat to the British way of life.
The poll found:
* 9 per cent were prepared to make significant changes to their travel habits, such as getting rid of their car altogether or cutting out air travel completely;
* 38 per cent were happy to make moderate changes, such as investing in a green car, starting a car-share scheme or limiting air travel;
* 36 per cent would make minimal changes, such as taking public transport or riding a bike more often.
The survey coincided with the release of the ICE's report, State of the Nation - Low Carbon Infrastructure, which explained why infrastructure, alongside behaviour change and political action is fundamental to creating a low-carbon society.
The report concluded that to meet ambitious carbon targets, new and existing transport, energy, waste and water networks needed to be adapted and developed to minimise emissions and highlighted the role this infrastructure had to play in changing individual and collective behaviours.
Among the short-term solutions identified in the report were rail electrification, which had the potential to reduce the carbon impact of the railways, onshore and offshore wind farms, an upgrade of the energy grid and combined heat and power plants.
ICE president Paul Jowitt said: "Delivering cuts in emissions on the scale needed and within the time restraints that exist will require radical changes in behaviour and society.
"However, public behaviour is restricted by the choices available to them. We need to transform the infrastructure that makes up the fabric of society and underpins economic activity so that the only choices we make are low carbon ones."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
the game is UP ALARMISTS!!!!
game set match to the DENIERS>>>>>!!!!
Your disgusting SCAM has been exposed royally!!!
Brilliant......
Your foul language and propaganda linking people who doubt it to the holocaust is back IN YOUR FACE!!!
BUSTED BUSTED BUSTED......
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/b
Beautiful
BUSTED BUSTED BUSTED
GAME OVER GAME OVER
THE SCAM IS OVER
AL GORE SEE YOU IN COURT
Or will the Indy be selectively ignoring that story because it doesn't fit with the party line?
And sorry though I am to hear about Paul O'Grady's dog, why hasn't the leak of the CRU emails and documents found its way into your columns yet? Do they not fit in with the pre-Copenhagen propaganda blitz?
According to their logic then the Royal Society must be infiltrated with Communists, Socialists or eco fascists depending on the version of their well worn lexicon.
http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-ficti
A link to the Royal Society's page should give ample evidence to instigate an investigation.
What's the balance of evidence on this? Well, we might consider the facts that CRU have admitted that their files were hacked, and no-one at CRU has so far denied writing any of the e-mails attributed to them, despite having been given ample opportunity, and at least one person at the CRU has admitted to writing at least one of the more incriminating e-mails. It seems to me that a skeptic would go with the evidence, and accept that the e-mails are (almost?) certainly genuine, rather than take the dogmatist's route of ignoring evidence that contradicts what one would prefer to believe.
The CRU are suspect already, even without the leak. They have been stubbornly refusing to make their raw data available to other academics, to the extent recently of refusing Freedom of Information requests for very dubious-sounding reasons -- that's a serious breach of scientific etiquette, and arguably a breach of ethics. It's also very suspicious behaviour. Why refuse to release your raw data and code, when you've been accused of fakery, unless you have something to hide? The only way these guys can prove that they've not been committing scientific fraud is to allow other scientists to examine their data. Do they actually want the suspicion to continue to hang over them? What's a skeptic to make of such behaviour? I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to be skeptical of their claims to scientific integrity.
Now read and digest and then kindly shut up....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/b
You can forget American legislation on Cap & Trade. You can forget proper American participation at Copenhagen. More and more Americans are blaming the Democrats for the poor state of the economy and the revelations that American and UK scientists have colluded to manufacture, massage and milk climate data on Global Warming will simply make it impossible to pass any legislation on controlling CO2 emissions, something that directly threatens American jobs.
Hmmm. America standing in the way of Global Agreements to attempt to limit the likely problems caused by Global Warming (whatever the cause). Nothing new there. This attitude of course has nothing to do with the Bush's regime doing everything in its power to discredit Global Warming theories.
Still I suppose after 200 years Americans still have problems accepting the theory of evolution, so it should be no surprise that they have problems accepting a new theory like Global Warming.
One Question though: Peak Oil?
Do Americans beleive in this theory too?
My reason for asking is that once the oil, (& coal & gas) runs out, then it will be essential that we adopt renewable energy resources, that we find methods of propelling vehicles, planes, and rockets that do not require non existent fossil fuels. The solutions to peak oil and climate change are the same. Humankind needs to develop renewable resources, and alternative forms of energy.
Do Americans consider what will happen when oil starts to run out? What affect on American jobs when oil hits $200, $500, or $1000 a barrel?
I can understand some of the climate sceptisim (although I don't agree with it), I really cannot understand the people who think the status quo can be allowed to continue - especially when it is just for the sake of profit for the petro-chemical industry.
I beleive over the next 30 years we are going to see some of the biggest changes to our civilisation, firstly in the form of an increasingly hostile climate, and secondly the dimishment of fossil fuels.
If we are to survive these without massive suffering for millions of people, surely it makes sense to develop the new technologies we will require in the future, now, rather than leave it to late
The fact that denialists so wet their knickers over some alleged E-mails regarded paleo-climatic data just shows how increasingly desperate and tenuous their grasp of reality is.
You're so fond of thinking that everything you don't agree with is a hoax. I don't suppose it has even remotely occured to you that this might be one. That would require true scepticism. I don't know whether it is or not (a hoax), but in any case it is not the knock-out punch you fantasise about.
Let's wait for the story to be covered in the grown-up media, not just on wild west web sites. There is overwhealming evidence that carbon emissions change the cliamte in the long-term. You denialists are just kidding yourselves, and grasping at this straw with a girlish, hysterical relish. Laughable.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/ar
Link to the docs at bottom of article.
So we have:
1) Illegal fudging/obstruction to FOIA requests
2) Tampering with data to support AGW
3) Probable destruction of data to prevent peer replication (or not) of results
4) Suppression of the scientific data that contradicted the "correct" theories
5) Suppression of opposing scientific viewpoints in peer reviewed publications (then claiming that due to few peer reviewed papers being published the other side had no evidence)
6) Guidelines for brainwashing the gullible public via their useful idiots in the media.
7) Probable money laundering/tax fiddling.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin.
document called "RulesOfTheGame.pdf". Definitely worth reading.
It's put together by a company called futerra.
The first line states
"The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it."
Later on it lists things one should do and things one shouldn't do in order
to propagate AGW successfully. Among the things to do it states:
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive
desires/aspirations
TRADITIONAL MARKEING associates products with the aspirations of
their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning
People learn through social interaction, and some people are
better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.
What is a document of this kind doing at CRU? Is phil jones
studying part time for a marketing degree? Or is he looking for
tips on how to "sell" the AGW hoax?
It's all very amusing. I don't recall ever hearing about any
scientist or group thereof hiring a marketing company to promote
their scientific work. Very curious.
Does anyone have the "Deniers" equivalent?
the SST base the German modellers used in their runs was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc. There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't even measure it properly now.….. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this…..
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK "
I found the above extract on Page 36 of
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/i
It seems that our honourable government scientists believe they have a duty to deceive the public on the most important issue facing mankind. If they want respect they out to be transparent about their (dodgy) methods. It worries me that they, "found a way around this… [FOI=freedom of information request]..." all at taxpayers’ expense.
Why would Professor Jones and his colleagues need to illegally conspire to cover anything up if man-made climate change was real and the science was ‘settled’? I just had to remind myself about what the Club of Rome, that influential think tank that guides the UN in its policies, tells us about who is our “real enemy”. I recall they stated the following:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
See Chapter V - The Vacuum, First Global Revolution, Club of Rome (1991)
So if there is no action on climate change it is clear we are not living in the democracy we think we are.
Even George Monbiot of the Guardian, latterly an ACW zealot is having second thoughts. Says George; ....there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
In a response to a reader, he says;
Monbiot
23 Nov 2009, 9:18PM
Contributor Sabraguy:
But now I suggest you review your file of correspondence and articles, and figure out who you need to apologize to.
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
The house of cards is beginning to crumble.