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)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tim, your links stink, you fink!
- John Bangsund's Threepenny Planet
- Broken Biro
- Poetry 24
- Superlative scribbles
- Kirstyn McD!
- Rorrim a tsomla almost a mirror
- More Sterne
- Sterne
- Cam the man from the Dan.
- Too hot to Raaaaaaandallllllll!
- Erin's Excellently Everlasting Effervescements!
- Slammy Infamy
- Hail Paco!
- Baron Blandwagon, purveyor of cyberbunnies, hawker of Roger Corman, and Misruler of the Multiverse
- The Bolta. Aiyeeeeee!!!!!
- Bad Apple Audrey
- The cartoon church
- Sir Martinkus
- A Zemblanian abroad and at home
- A hodge podge of hotzeplotz
- THE SLAMMA!
- Jottlesby's nottings, or should that be Nottlesby's jottings?
- The Snarking of the Hunt
- Jazzy Hands
- David of Metal City
- David the Barista
- The Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony
- Be an Opinion Dominion Minion!
- Mel...
- ... and Fel
- His brilliant career - from whale sushi to crumbed prawn
- Jo Blogs
- Yet another Tim
- Croucherisms...
- Was two peas, now three peas
- Desciopolous!
- ... Still Life - now with extra rotating cats!
- Erin...
- An Amazingly Awesome Australian Ampersand!
- Blink and you'll miss 'er
- Red in the land of the tigers!
- Wire of Vibe
- Chase him, ladies, he's in the cavalry!
- The Non-palindromical Editrix in Germanium
- Old Sterne
- Gempiricalisations
- TonyT
- The briefs...
- ... and the brieflets
- The Purple Blog
- Blairville, lair of all that is wicked and perfidious
- The enticingly acronymical CSH
- EXTREEEEEEEME WYNTER!
- Mark of California
- Jellyfish
- Silent Speaking
- Lexicon the Mexican
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(288)
-
▼
December
(24)
- The very long, bewhiskered, sniffly-snuffly nose o...
- Herondipity
- Great unfinished songs and stories of the world
- Great gift ideas for Christmas
- Amusing non-hierarchical inclusive participatory a...
- A Christmas carol for austere times
- Publicity schmublicity
- A meeting of great minds
- Gellervision
- I need to know, and I need to know NOW!
- A vegetable plot
- You are a cat #2
- You are a cat #1
- An ode to the beard
- Thought for food
- Things continue in much the same way they have alw...
- People believe in thing they have never heard of
- Three of the worst horrors known to man...
- Rough and fluff
- Beginninninninninninninngs and endendendendendende...
- Narcischism
- AOKFTWABC!
- Proposals for charity events
- Great questions, answered at last
-
▼
December
(24)
9 comments:
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!
dear SarahJ - no point in trying to educate that bad-tempered little Bwca. Bigger people have attacked her before this.
Man, these climate change posts are magic. Instant comments controversy!
Must admit I do that 'its/it's' thing a LOT.
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.
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'.
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! :< )
Maybe if it occurs it will be a major impact for the better?
Post a Comment