I was a surprised to read the Guardian article Climate change: world’s wealthiest understand, but only half see it as threat, because it was filled with statements of gloom for alarmists:
People living in the world’s wealthiest nations generally understand what climate change is but in many countries just half perceive it to be a threat, new research has found.
While more than 75% of people in Australia, the US, UK and most of the rest of Europe were aware of climate change, far fewer considered it to be detrimental to themselves or their families.
In Russia, despite widespread understanding of climate change, less than 50% of people thought it was a risk to them.
What is remarkable, is that this is what is being written in the world’s most upbeat eco-zealot paper (only kept alive by money from an automobile magazine) regurgitating something from another global warming propaganda rag: Nature Climate Change.
Usually Nature Climate Change spin the numbers to put the best gloss on them and then Guardian increase the spin add bells knobs and whistles to make it seem the world loves global warming. But not this time. It’s almost as if they’ve lost their will (perhaps it’s the summer cold?). If this is the best they can do,
…. things must be pretty dire in the alarmist camp.
The Guardian’s ‘intelligent’ readers, who ‘understand’ what climate change is about are, I think, calculated here to feel moral outrage that the rest of the developed world is being selfish and apathetic.
I would expect [with the big UN CACC conference coming up] further subtle articles to appear in the is press as an attempt to rekindle the flames.
[My Guardian reading friends are frightening to argue with when I express my skepticism.]
The Guardian have around three of these global warming hysteria articles a day and it is very much gaurdian love-fest with their supposed “journalists” writing for other guardian “journalists” with absolutely no interest in whether anyone outside wants to read their non-science.
I suppose I might have actually answered the question as to why this article is so gloomy: they’ve been reminded how few people outside the Guardian are interested in their garbage.
This article is inaccurate.
In fact, it has been shown that more scientifically literate individuals are more sceptical about AGW altogether, not less convinced it will harm them personally.
Kahan, Dan M., Wittlin, Maggie, Peters, Ellen, Slovic, Paul, Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Braman, Donald and Mandel, Gregory N., The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change (2011). Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503