This might of course mean that supporting reduction of carbon footprints (or whatever) should be further enforced as people wont adopt it by any kind of choice. So expect more taxes winging our way soon. More scientists, more Gore...

Ha, dontcha just love Emma Hardcastle's reaction to the poll data!! Does she care one jot what the majority thinks, oh no! The "debate is closed" for her sort, and if the public aren't listening to what she "knows" are the "facts", then she'll just have to keep bashing away until she gets the "right" answer! Bit like those EU referenda - "sorry, that's not the correct vote, please try again"!

So that's ok folks.

Let's DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about carbon emissions. In fact, let's encourage them to grow by closing down all the nuclear power plants and wind farms. It's SO obvious that the more carbon dioxide we emit the better!

After all, an opinion poll has said so, so what more proof do we need?

LOL!

Peter, I think that you will find that the majority of people who don't buy AGW theory are still concerned about the environment.

Monica - YES - the MENTAL environment ! There seem to be forces around who are determined that we shall live in fear of the consequences of, and guilty of "man's" causation of, any and every thing that happens on earth.

Oh, how much better the planet would be if only man did not exist - that seems to be their viewpoint to peddle. If it ain't a new ice age, then meat-eating, or pop music, ANYTHING to make us feel bad.

Much as I love Eeyore in Winnie the Pooh, I do not care for him endlessly in the Times or on the BBC !

Alan Douglas

The C of E are blaming God for the bad weather.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

And here is a report of poll that says most people in the UK believe in ghosts:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2174292005

Here is a poll that estimates that 83% of Americans believe in alien abduction:

http://www.scifi.com/ufo/roper/03.html

And here is an opinion poll that proves that evolution is true:

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/134

The poll shows, best of all, that people are NOT getting their news from TV and other vested interests in global catastrophe.....but off the more democratic, World Wide Web.
And that is very heartening news for old Joe public.

"The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people"

Who did this poll and with what methods? Sounds like it may be as credible as that one up in the top left corner up there.

"The C of E are blaming God for the bad weather."

LOL, Henry. We're right back in the 14th century. Tell you what, let's massacre a few hundred Jews to atone for all our debauchery.

Looks like the God of the Old Testament is back in and the cosmic muffin of the NT is out. Why do people beat a path to the door of these clowns expecting wisdom?

"The summer floods are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, claim senior Church of England bishops.

Bishop of Carlisle: Floods are judgment on society
The Bishop said pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods

One, the Bishop of Carlisle, even said that the introduction of pro-gay laws had provoked God to send the storms that have left thousands homeless.

The bishops argued that while those affected are innocent victims"

Lovely. Should we build an ark or burn a witch?

>>And here is an opinion poll that proves that evolution is true:<<

>>Sounds like it may be as credible as that one up in the top left corner up there<<

LOL. in good form this morning, Frank!

>>the Bishop of Carlisle, even said that the introduction of pro-gay laws had provoked God to send the storms that have left thousands homeless.<<

Brilliant!!! That one's just too good to be true.

"Who did this poll and with what methods? Sounds like it may be as credible as that one up in the top left corner up there."

This from the man who believes every single word of the Lancet Iraq deaths study...

For once we are all in agreement about the loony nature of the CofE (I'd add religion in general but lets not spoil the warm fluffy consensus eh). It takes a special kind of idiocy to unite *everyone* at ATW in condemnation...

DSD,

"This from the man who believes every single word of the Lancet Iraq deaths study..."

Mind-reading again, DSD?

When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened. It is sad to go to pieces like this but we all have to do it.
-- Mark Twain

No answer to the actual question, I see.

Hey, Frank. How many surplus deaths are there in Iraq now, at this moment, as dated from the overthrow of Saddam? We know that you believe The Lancet's report to be correct and that cited 655,000 at about one year ago over a three-year period so, on the basis that the rate has increased, what is the current tally?

Allan,

Your question is incorrectly posed, but making allowances for the fact that you're an idiot, and that it is likely that the heat death of the universe will come sooner than you posing the question correctly, here's a good answer to the question I think you are struggling to ask.

I hope that helps you but I have difficulty believing you can be helped.

Frank, how many excess deaths do you believe there have been in Iraq since Saddam's overthrow?

Too many.

Would that be how many too many?

No, Allan, it wouldn't. I am not going to try to explain confidence intervals to you when you can barely understand words.

The bottom line is that according to several studies now people have been consistently dying at a greater rate since the invasion than before it (and it was pretty bad before), and the rate appears to be increasing. No study has concluded that the rate is the same or less. Indeed you hardly need a study to see that now.

You should be appalled if even one person is killed in an unjust war, but then you're an anti-arab racist so for all I know you welcome the deaths.

Frank,

We all read your spirited and detailed defence of the 'methodology' behind the Lancet study when it was first published, so pretending some from of ambiguity now just so you can play your usual silly word games is really more than a little sad.

And the poll was conducted by Pocket Issue, whose spokeswoman makes it pretty clear in her article that she is on the side of the believers in Global Warming.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result."

Subtle. So trying to allege that the source of this poll is some kind of nasty rightworld AGW thinktank when you would know this is not the case just by reading the article is also somewhat disingenous...

DSD,

"We all read your spirited and detailed defence of the 'methodology'"

But apparently didn't understand it. Is there something wrong with the methodology that would make you put it in scare quotes? If so, what?

" behind the Lancet study when it was first published so pretending some from of ambiguity now"

What form of ambiguity am I "pretending". Be specific, and include the evidence for your lie.

"So trying to allege that the source of this poll is some kind of nasty rightworld AGW thinktank"

And where did I try to allege that? Again, be specific and include the evidence for your lie. For example provide a quote from me and not from the voices in your head.

I asked who performed the poll and how. I see that you don't know either.

Frank, how many people do YOU believe have been killed in Iraq above the norm since the overthrow of Saddam?

The answer is still too many, Allan.

OK Frank, we'll leave it there.

DSD,

Seems like over here in America the conservatives are going in the other direction. See Moving beyond denial.

Just for clarity...the poll was by AOL.co.uk on their site, using content from Pocket Issue, Global Warming called "Open to debate" - i.e. we give space in the book to the different arguments around climate change - who disagrees and why. How biased is that? Maybe you should read the book and then decide what you think?

Secondly the point in the press release is that our gobernments are wasting money on carbon counters when they assume we all agree that we can change the climate through our actions...many clearly don't agree.
pocket issue - www.pocketissue.com

Pocket Issue,

Thanks for confirming Frank O'Dwyer's suspicions about the non-scientific nature of your poll. It's also good to know that your main purpose is to sell books. Bet you're glad for all this free publicity.