Voters are losing their intrest on climate change.

[canukian]

Voters are losing their interest in climate change

Read more: Lorne Gunter: Voters are losing their interest in climate change | Full Comment | National Post​

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

to be fair its a bit much to expect the masses to have a long attention span. Bush getting two terms proved that.

 

[trunks2k]

Not surprised. "It's the economy, stupid". When the economy isn't doing well, it will push other issues aside.

 

[FallenPaladin]

Yeah, ever since the climatologists were exposed as liars manipulating data their cause has fizzled.

 

[canukian]

Yeah, ever since the climatologists were exposed as liars manipulating data their cause has fizzled.

Thats right. just never expect a liar to admit that he or she is a liar.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Thats right. just never expect a liar to admit that he or she is a liar.

Yeah! nevermind that it was just proclaimed by decree that it was a lie and nobody ever was able to produce any evidence for that claim. Course that the nice thing about the media, you just need to shout it loud enough and handwave away the mountains of evidence for global warming with your powerfull personal conviction. Much like every other issue.

Fortunally though atleast the public has very little to do with actuall research so them losing interest isnt that big of a deal. Instead of letting them know electric cars will help the enviroment we wil just let the next james bond movie star a electric car and bam we got them right where we want them.

 

[Drekkan85]

Majority of American's don't understand science.

Not that shocking of a development.

 

[Supreme]

I do still think the climate is on people's minds- the election of the first MP from the Green Party this year proved that. However, there's obviously far more on people's plates. As for China? It's the next superpower, and has a rapidly growing economy. The West may want a stop to global warming, but they're not willing to risk good relations with the rich and powerful Chinese.

I still think Britain has a large role to play- we may not emit as much as China or the USA, but everything we can do to stop climate change, we should be doing.

 

[tulc]

Thats right. just never expect a liar to admit that he or she is a liar.

...we're still talking about President Bush? Come on the threads about climate change!
tulc(just trying to keep it on track here)

 

[Paulos23]

Its on my mind, but then I work for an insurance company. When the weather starts damaging your insureds homes outside of the normal predicable pattern you start paying attention. The claimant is changing, and with it the weather, for better or worse.

 

[eldermike]

Some actual climate change might be necessary to convince folks.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Some actual climate change might be necessary to convince folks.

Thats the problem with hollywood and instant gratification. They really raised the bar before people see something as actually happening. We'd probably need half the rainforest to catch fire and turn into wasteland overnight before the masses actually believe something changed...Come to think of it that might still be too far away, maybe yellowstone park so we can make add involving yogi-bear.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Not surprised. "It's the economy, stupid". When the economy isn't doing well, it will push other issues aside.

Very true. It hasn't helped that climate change lobbyists solution to everything comes across as "make people pay more for stuff"

 

[EdwinWillers]

Thats the problem with hollywood and instant gratification. They really raised the bar before people see something as actually happening. We'd probably need half the rainforest to catch fire and turn into wasteland overnight before the masses actually believe something changed...Come to think of it that might still be too far away, maybe yellowstone park so we can make add involving yogi-bear.

*SOME* gratification however would certainly help...

 

[rambot]

Yeah, ever since the climatologists were exposed as liars manipulating data their cause has fizzled.

1) They weren't exposed as liars.
2) If they are wrong, their detractors have done 0 to prove it so.

Some actual climate change might be necessary to convince folks.

So you haven't read how the last couple decades have been going hey?
It's hard to convince people who refuse to listen honestly.

 

[canukian]

Have you ever caught a lying lair in a lie? did the lying liar admit he or she was lying?

 

[tulc]

Have you ever caught a lying lair in a lie? did the lying liar admit he or she was lying?

I think spellcheck may have tripped you up in your post bro.
And no, I haven't. I have however seen someone who made a mistake admit it. President Obama for instance.
tulc(and a mistake isn't a lie)

 

[Polycarp1]

Its on my mind, but then I work for an insurance company. When the weather starts damaging your insureds homes outside of the normal predicable pattern you start paying attention. The claimant -> climate is changing, and with it the weather, for better or worse.

I think it's usually in bad taste to highlight people's spelling mistakes -- and I make enough of my own to apply the Golden Rule. So I hope you'll forgive me, Paulos, for breaking that principle in this case, because with you talking about insurance companies and then writing claimant where you apparently meant climate, there was room for misunderstanding.

Some observations:

• The mean world temperature IS increasing, in very small increments, when looked at over an extended period.
• The alleged disproof takes as its base year the hottest year yet on record, 1998, an anomalous year, and then "shows" that temperatures have been lower since then. The problem here, of course, is that any data set will have one maximum and one minimum. Comparing data to the maximum will obviously show results lower. Rather, what should be looked at is the trend over time, with anomalous data 'faired' into the curve -- and that DOES show a small consistent increase.
• Global warming advocates at the University of East Anglia, England, did fudge data to makke a better case. This was equally reprehensible with the fudging done by the deniers.
• There's some evidence connecting global warming to a slight increase in insolation (amount of energy we get from the Sun). This may well be a factor in the whole picture.
• There's plenty of evidence that human production of greenhouse gases since the start of the Industrial Revolution has been a major component of the temperature change.
• Some of the most outspoen people have played Chicken Little -- I take their doom-predictions with a grain of salt.
• Many of the scientists denying global warming are employed by energy companies who stand to lose a lot of money if policies to combat global warming are put in place. To me, that makes their objectivity suspect, to say the least.
• The degree to which globl warming results from human activity, planetary cycles, etc., is debabable. That id does exist, is not.
• Remember we are speaking of climate change, not local weather. Put more heat and more evaporation in the atmosphere, and you get more storms. Locally, this could actually have a cooling effect in some places. Its the worldwide picture that needs to be looked at.
• Many American Republicans pooh-pooh global warming -- but their leaders are funded by the selfsame corporations who stand to lose if it is proven valid and properly combatted. I would think they could see when they're being duped.
• As with the Internet, Al Gore is not at issue. In both cases, he saw something that needed doing, and spoke out about it. Whether he engages in energy-guzzling pursuits himself has little to do with whether the rest of us should be concerned about the issue.
• People are understandably more concerned with their own problems when economic downturns require them to tigthen their belts, or perhaps put them in really bad situations. That does not change whether the problem exists, only whether it's foremost in people's minds.

 

[eldermike]

Thats the problem with hollywood and instant gratification. They really raised the bar before people see something as actually happening. We'd probably need half the rainforest to catch fire and turn into wasteland overnight before the masses actually believe something changed...Come to think of it that might still be too far away, maybe yellowstone park so we can make add involving yogi-bear.

I was just out at Yellowstone making carbon footprints (keeping the local economy going). I think we are a few years away from spontaneous combustion, in fact I suggest a light jacket for afternoons and some heavier stuff for higher elevations.

 

[Billnew]

Not surprised. "It's the economy, stupid". When the economy isn't doing well, it will push other issues aside.

I do believe people are less sold on MMGW,
but even bigger, people are concerned about the economy.

If people aren't eating, they are less likely to care what happens in 30-50yrs.