In 2006, Al Gore brought out this:
An Inconvenient Truth (1/10) Movie CLIP - Science of Global Warming (2006) HD - YouTube
An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was shown by the Rotary Club of Sidmouth in October 2007
Rotary Club of Sidmouth - Events 2007-2008
Also in 2007, Channel 4 broadcast this film by Martin Durkin:
The great global warming swindle - Full version - YouTube
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Martin Durkin (television director) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Futures Forum: Telegraph campaign: Hands off Our Land
THREE CHEERS FOR 'URBAN SPRAWL' | martindurkin.com
This film hinges on the veracity of scientific opinion:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Climate science opinion2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation". Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures." Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."
The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analysing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause." Others they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), 'fatalists' (17%) and 'regulation activists' (5%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.
They found that respondents that support regulation ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry". Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.
John Cook et al, 2013
Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation, adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The question remains, therefore, as to why the 'consensus' outside the scientific community is one of 'scepticism' - especially in the English-speaking world.
Indeed, the whole 'debate' has become highly politicised:
A survey of American adults found that "as respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased [slightly]", and that cultural values are a much better determinant of opinions on global warming than education.
In Europe, individuals who have attained a higher level of education perceive climate change as a serious threat. There is also a strong association between education and Internet use. Europeans who use the Internet more are more likely to perceive climate change as a serious threat.
The shared sentiments between the political left and right on climate change further illustrate the divide in perception between the United States and Europe on climate change. As an example, conservative German Prime Ministers Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel have differed with other parties in Germany only on "how to meet emissions reduction targets, not whether or not to establish or fulfill them."Public opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?: Scientific American
November 9, 2011 | This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation.
When public opinion on the big social and political issues changes, the trends tend to be relatively gradual. Abrupt shifts, when they come, are usually precipitated by dramatic events. Which is why pollsters are so surprised by what has happened to perceptions about climate change over a span of just four years. A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent—well under half the population. According to Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, this is “among the largest shifts over a short period of time seen in recent public opinion history.”
Even more striking, this shift has occurred almost entirely at one end of the political spectrum. As recently as 2008 (the year Newt Gingrich did a climate change TV spot with Nancy Pelosi) the issue still had a veneer of bipartisan support in the United States. Those days are decidedly over. Today, 70–75 percent of self-identified Democrats and liberals believe humans are changing the climate—a level that has remained stable or risen slightly over the past decade. In sharp contrast, Republicans, particularly Tea Party members, have overwhelmingly chosen to reject the scientific consensus. In some regions, only about 20 percent of self-identified Republicans accept the science.
Equally significant has been a shift in emotional intensity. Climate change used to be something most everyone said they cared about—just not all that much. When Americans were asked to rank their political concerns in order of priority, climate change would reliably come in last.
But now there is a significant cohort of Republicans who care passionately, even obsessively, about climate change—though what they care about is exposing it as a “hoax” being perpetrated by liberals to force them to change their light bulbs, live in Soviet-style tenements and surrender their SUVs. For these right-wingers, opposition to climate change has become as central to their worldview as low taxes, gun ownership and opposition to abortion. Many climate scientists report receiving death threats, as do authors of articles on subjects as seemingly innocuous as energy conservation. (As one letter writer put it to Stan Cox, author of a book critical of air-conditioning, “You can pry my thermostat out of my cold dead hands.”)
This culture-war intensity is the worst news of all, because when you challenge a person’s position on an issue core to his or her identity, facts and arguments are seen as little more than further attacks, easily deflected. (The deniers have even found a way to dismiss a new study confirming the reality of global warming that was partially funded by the Koch brothers, and led by a scientist sympathetic to the “skeptic” position.)Capitalism vs. the Climate | The Nation
Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com
Naomi Klein 'waging ideological war' instead of tackling climate change | Environment | theguardian.com
Now a new piece of research on opinion in the US published in the journal Climatic Change suggests that the public's response to the great scientific issue of the day is often determined by the state of the weather. The study, carried out by the University of British Columbia, looked at public and media attitudes to climate science over the past 20 years.
BBC News - Are public attitudes to climate change as fickle as the weather?
UK Polling Report
Poll appears to show growth in climate skepticism - but what kind is it? | Carbon Brief
BBC News - Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view
Climate change is an uncertain science - Telegraph
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express
‘Climate change? People get very emotional about the subject. It’s not all bad’: Owen Paterson accused of being irresponsible after he plays down the dangers of global warming - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
Owen Paterson v the science of climate change | Environment | theguardian.com
Climate: observations, projections and impacts - Met Office
Australia's Murdoch Newspapers Lying to Public About Climate Change, Says Study Author
CONSIDER the following two statistics together.
Research into the peer-reviewed science of climate change found that between 1991 and 2011, 97 per cent of studies agreed that climate change is caused mostly by humans.
Research into the reporting of climate change science in Australia's biggest selling newspaper, the Herald Sun in Melbourne, has found that 81 per cent of all the coverage, including 97 per cent of all the opinion stories, were sceptical of human-caused climate change.
Overall, this major new study into newspaper coverage of climate change in Australia has found about one third of all the stories and columns are sceptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.
But the study, carried out by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at Sydney's University of Technology, reveals how Australia's dominant Rupert Murdoch-owned newspapers are heavily slanted away from the scientific reality towards denial of the science.
The Sceptical Climate study was led by Wendy Bacon, Professorial Fellow at the ACIJ. She told DeSmogBlog:
These results are very disturbing because effectively the biggest Australian newspapers are lying to their audiences although journalism is supposed to be about reporting as truthfully and accurately as we can. News Corp is responsible for most of the articles that don't accept the consensus. Because two thirds of print media are in its hands, all we can do is to put all effort into ensuring critical independent voices are heard. Unfortunately lower income less educated audiences are being lied to the most. Some regions get hardly any coverage at all. The information divide on this crucial issue is deep in Australia.
The 220-page report looked in detail at the coverage of climate change science in 10 of Australia's top selling newspapers across the country between February and April 2011 and the same period in 2012.
How Murdoch's Aussie Papers Cover Climate Change : NPR
Has Rupert Murdoch turned into a climate change sceptic? - Press - Media - The Independent
A new film has just come out challenging the 'sceptics':
Greedy Lying Bastards Film Trailer - YouTube
Greedy Lying Bastards
Greedy Lying Bastards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a film on contemporary issues I like a neutral title that lets viewers make up their own minds. Greedy Lying Bastards: how about that for Craig Scott Rosebraughs’s documentary about climate change deniers? He stands the villains up and hands us the rotten tomatoes.
Villains such as the English lord, the Republican lobbyist, and all those who spit in the face of fact. Rosebraugh is a persuasive crusader. He attaches every enemy of truth to his or her damning special interest, from yesterday’s Bush-Cheney-Halliburton axis to today’s energy tycoons saying “Warming? What warming?” because they have their own cosy heat source in oil, gas or other CO2 delivery systems. This film is an awful warning and awful fun at one and the same time.Film reviews: Blue Jasmine, Prisoners, Greedy Lying Bastards, Hannah Arendt and Runner Runner - FT.com
See also: Futures Forum: "...trying to use Typhoon Haiyan as an excuse to justify more concerted global action to 'combat climate change'... "