Thursday, December 09, 2010

People believe in thing they have never heard of

For the first time, we have found less than 50 per cent of Australians think climate change is real.

For the first time! Ever! It is indeed interesting that in the 1970s and '60s, before the term 'climate change' had been invented, high percentages of people nevertheless managed to believe in the phenomenon. But I just don't think that's enough. With a little hard work, and some targeted and imaginative public awareness campaigns, and the spirited participation of the media, perhaps we can get even more people in the past to believe in climate change before those people in the past reach the future, which is the present, and it's too late (or possibly too late to be too early). We might, of course, be tempted to ask ourselves, 'how is it that even less people believe in climate change now, long after the concept has been invented, than then, when nobody had heard in it, but kept on believing in it anyway?' We might, indeed, be tempted to see this as failure of our current approach towards publicising matters relating to climate change. But such temptations should be resisted!

Sadly, however, polling of people of previous generations in relation to the existence of Justin Bieber shows that few people in the past know who he is, and even fewer care. People of the past! Strive to be more like us, right now, which I suppose means then, or whenever it was that you are able to make it!

... Since we began polling climate change in 2008, this is the first time we have seen acceptance of climate change slip under 50 per cent.

Oh. Two years? Hmmm...

(Via Tim)


BwcaBrownie said...

Dear WTFF, your own credibility is such that I assume the quote is exact, so I can deride the statement's veracity via it's bad grammar.
end of debate.

sarahj said...

You can't deride something 'via' something. That is the incorrect conjunction. You should have used 'because of' or something similar. Also, that 'its' you've used shouldn't have an apostrophe.

Mitzi G Burger said...

Friends of mine in 8th grade did a project on rising sea levels due to melting of polar ice caps. We didn't call it climate change, we called The Greenhouse Effect and ENVIRONMENTAL APOLCALYPSE!!!!!!!!!!!

Ann O'Dyne said...

dear SarahJ - no point in trying to educate that bad-tempered little Bwca. Bigger people have attacked her before this.

TimT said...

Man, these climate change posts are magic. Instant comments controversy!

Must admit I do that 'its/it's' thing a LOT.

TimT said...

In terms of the labels used, I think 'greenhouse effect' was first, then 'global warming', and then 'climate change'. 'Climate change' is especially useful because it's so general - it could conceivably be used to describe any weather change, whether it be permanent or temporary, major or minor, hotter or colder, worse or better.

TimT said...

Indeed 'climate change' is pretty much irrefutable. EVERYTHING changes, including the climate. 'The only thing constant is change itself' - Heraclitus.

So AGW skeptics can mischeviously proclaim 'I'm a skeptic and I believe in climate change'.

Anonymous said...

I'm a bit more mundane than that, TimT...all this talk, but what does it actually ACHIEVE!! I'm glad I won't be around to see the future, after climate change has had a major impact! :< )

TimT said...

Maybe if it occurs it will be a major impact for the better?

Email: timhtrain - at -

eXTReMe Tracker

Blog Archive