Australians losing interest in global warming - Warmists getting desperate

Australians are clearly losing their interest in global warming: 

ACCORDING TO THE Lowy Institute's annual poll, Australians are losing their conviction on climate change. The last poll, published in June 2011 showed that just 41 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs" down from a whopping 68 per cent in 2006.

Meanwhile, support for the statement, "Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs" has risen over the same period from seven per cent to 19 per cent.

This positive development, which is happening despite of the long standing mainstream media global warming  propaganda campaign, is clearly making the the Austrian warmists desperate. An ABC documentary, which also gives a number of sceptics a chance to voice their views, is now criticized on the television channel´s webpage by one of its own reporters:

So a documentary, I can change your mind about climate, which attempts to pit the evidence for climate change against the evidence that everything will be just fine must have seemed like a good idea. It would seem Australians are not clear on the science and a telly special could help present the two sides of the 'debate'.
--

Whatever the true cause for the loss of conviction on climate change, the airing of this program on the ABC puts the national broadcaster in an invidious position. Around one fifth of people in the Australian community genuinely believe that we don't need to act on climate change. That's not an insignificant number and these people have a right to a voice.
On the other hand, by airing their non-factual views, it lends legitimacy to them. And it further alienates the majority (is 41% a majority?, NNoN) of Australians who just want to get on and address the problem.
With every report from scientists and economists further emphasising the increasing urgency of acting on climate, and with our political leaders in agreement on the need for action, the time for 'debate' is past. Even though they may be opposed, climate sceptics must accept the inevitability of the world moving on climate change.


In addition, ABC has given the alarmist John Cook a chance to personally attack the "deniers":

How does one deny the consensus of evidence? One straightforward approach is to simply ignore it! Jo Nova ignores satellite observations that directly measure an increased greenhouse effect when she claims the warming effect from carbon dioxide (CO₂) is immeasurable. Richard Lindzen claims negative feedbacks will cancel out CO₂ warming, citing the Earth's past. But it's precisely the Earth's past that provides many independent lines of evidence for reinforcing feedbacks that are an integral part of our climate system.

Marc Morano delivers a breathtaking torrent of misinformation (although I'm not sure he did take a breath) that ignores entire swathes of evidence. He overlooks the fact that Arctic sea ice has dramatically thinned with the total amount of ice hitting record low levels in 2011. He ignores that global warming is still happening, with our planet currently absorbing heat at a rate of two Hiroshima bombs per second. Genuine scepticism requires considering the full body of evidence in order to properly understand what's happening to our climate. What we witness from Nick Minchin's witnesses is not genuine scepticism but rejection of any inconvenient evidence.

Why does this small minority deny the evidence and the overwhelming opinion of experts? The major driving force behind climate denial is conservative ideology and the fear of government regulation. The most concise explanation of this influence is provided by Naomi Oreskes in a scene that sadly didn't make it into the final cut.

It is, of course, no accident that Oreskes did not make it to the final cut. This "Conspiracy Queen" has long ago lost her credibility - if she ever had any: 

Naomi Oreskes is the environmentalist Noam Chomsky. She thinks that anyone who questions environmentalist doctrine is evil. Her crusade is to expose the presumed ulterior motives of the critics. According to Oreskes, if you question the dubious studies concerning secondhand tobacco smoke, you must be in the pay of tobacco companies. If you question global warming, you must be working for a fossil fuel company. If you question the DDT ban, you must part of a right wing conspiracy to weaken faith in government regulators.


Oreskes is the author of one of the silliest article ever to appear in the journal Science. She claimed that she analyzed 928 peer-reviewed papers on global warming and 100% agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concerning global warming. If you go to the website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) you can find hundreds of peer reviewed papers that disagree with the IPCC in one way or another.
Her latest book, with co-author Erik Conway, is Merchants of Doubt. In this tedious book she treats us to the details of numerous disputes between those who subscribe to normative environmental theology and those who don't. Normative environmental theology is the sort of theology that is preached by the Sierra Club or the Union of Concerned Scientists. Oreskes is a professor and an important administrator at the University of California. Like Chomsky, she cloaks her endless conspiracy theories in the machinery of scholarship. Her 343 page book has 64 pages of notes. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.