I don’t think so. Sadly I cannot see the survey again but my recollection is that it did not make the claim that you suggest.
I am also puzzled as to where you stand. On the one hand you agree with zevon that climate change is not man-made then you quote the conclusions of the IPCC who hold and promote the opposite view to support your position. Are you saying the IPCC is right when they agree with you but otherwise wrong?
I believe the opinion poll had 2 different videos, one of which was randomly shown, so we did not all see the same presentation.
I’d like to see that household of zero people. 
Actually, could one see a household of zero people?
I answer quite a lot of surveys on different things, and to my mind, this one was poorly thought out and, in fact, rather amateurish. Not including “retired” is one example. and there were several instances where I was forced into answering a “Have you stopped beating your wife” sort of question.
I am not at all inconsistent in agreeing that climate change is real, but not believing in anthropogenic global warming. The climate has always changed, so I agree with that. What I don’t believe is that there is any empirical science that proves with a high level of repeatability that CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and there are masses of papers out there by reputable scientists which support this view to a greater or lesser extent. I find that very few people who say they support AGW have little understanding of the science, and are resistant to reading anything that they believe might change their mind. Recently I was attacked (well, not physically) by a person who wanted to debate me on my views. It quickly turned out that she did not even know what the UNIPCC was, let alone the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, yet she thought she knew it all.
You miss my point. I am not so much debating the issue, more the survey which does not allow me to express fully what I think. If I completed the survey, the researcher can only draw erroneous conclusions for which he will probably receive a PhD and a taxpayer funded salary increase.
Marmot clearly has far greater knowledge of the climate issue than me and and also articulates my point better than I did.
I am not a climate scientists but have worked closely with many from 1990 to 2009. My contacts included researchers at BoM, CSIRO, NCAR, DKRZ, EC, MetOffice, DWD, Jamstec, NASA (Goddard), CPTEC, MeteoFrance, and a few universities.
Some personal comments on trying to make a complex topic into a short opinion survey noting there are quite diverse opinions out here.
It is appalling how little credence is given to what is a near but not unanimous consensus on the high level issues, not necessarily explicit degrees of cause and effect. The bottom line is the preponderance of computer models, and there are many, all show the same trends, and the levers in the models to attribute changes to this or that all point to man-made ‘contributions’ to climate change. Some dispute this as ‘fake’. They are not going to change their minds.
There are deniers anything is happening, and there are deniers man has any impact, but the models show otherwise, and the state of the global climate reflects the predictions in the models. At the end of the day it is about risk management. On the chance the models are correct and humans are going to have to accept major changes to adapt would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution? Or does the human race party like there is no tomorrow (since there might not be for numerous reasons)?
Will a volcanic eruption change equilibrium or how the climate is reacting to nature and man? Could be, but do you bank what you know and can control to some degree, or opine it is all too hard and do nothing?
Now, how to plug my opinion into the survey 
I see at the end of the survey that you are happy to provide a plain-text analysis of the data. Can you also please link to it here on Choice?
Thanks.
You realise that you just biased the survey results against your own beliefs by not actually completing it? /golfclap
More broadly, you appear to be living in the Murdoch echo chamber and ignoring the findings of pretty much every scientist who has cared to look at this question. Presumably you think it’s all about scientists getting funding - but if you have a look around Australia scientists in government positions have been losing their jobs for speaking truth to government on climate! A climate scientist will get much better pay for being on the side of saying “everything’s fine, nothing to see here” - just look at the economics of university tenure vs. a job with Shell, or Esso, or BP - or Rupert, if you think you can string words of no greater than two syllables into sentences that get folks foaming at the mouth.
Newton’s Theory of Gravity is just that - but we rely upon it every single day. ‘Just a theory’ sounds like the catch-phrase of creationists against the Theory of Evolution, and just as naff here.
Yes, many of us have done our reading - and from both sides of the aisle rather than simply what Mr Murdoch tells us. (What’s that? You don’t follow the Murdochracy? Nobody ever does admit it, but he has some of the country’s best-selling rags - and the top-selling US TV entertainment, Faux News.) The reality is that climate denialism helps some wealthy people remain that way - and you appear to have swallowed the Kool-Aid without prompting.
Finally, I should mention that your references to Goebbels seem to ignore that he was right-wing - shouldn’t you be calling those of us who actually think science works commies?
(I’m a little more inclined to be impolite about your much-valued ‘opinions’ than some of the gentler forum members here.)
But… uh… don’t all those computer models start from the same assumptions of anthropogenic climate change, Mr @PhilT?
“Why, I’m glad you asked that Timmy…” (your turn now - I’m looking forward to some amusing/bemusing endings to this ‘dialogue’).
Oh dear! This is really not the place for that debate but, given that it’s started, here’s my two cents:
Experience has taught me that, where there’s a range of opinions, truth generally lies near the middle of the range. I call it the rational median. The further one strays from the rational median, the nearer one gets to the lunatic fringe.
On climate change numerous studies show that, among the best qualified, the rational median is that:
Since the nineteenth century, evidence has been building. Countless lines of enquiry have converged on what has become the consensus; the rational median. This is known as consilience. I reckon the existence of climate change and its origins in human activities are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering the topic of the thread this is the best I’ll do 
Wimp! (Do I mean that you are a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle? It’s a bit of a tough judgement if so, given that we have never met - although that may provide the ‘weak interaction’ portion of the term .)
I reject this. I have not biased the survey. To complete it would bias the survey as I can’t express what I think, which is my point, which seems to be lost. You seem to be biased against Rupert Murdoch. I can’t comment further as I don’t buy or read his publications. What has Goebbel’s politics got to do with it? I refer to his extremely effective means of influencing people to accept Nazi policies. I resent the implication that I have been in some way been “less than gentle” than some forum members and also that I think my opinions are “much-valued”. I have exercised my (clearly former) right to free speech. If thiat offends you then please feel free to be impolite. I never would as I come from a culture of manners and respect for differing opinions.
As was said several times in the survey, and has been said many times in this thread, and is said everywhere besides right-wing media: of the 13,000+ scientific articles pertaining to climate change, a whopping ~12,600 of them point in the direction of anthropogenic climate change. The facts have been discussed, and consolidated. There is no “leftist attitude” or media agenda, just reproducible facts. You seem to be the one with the agenda with your baseless claims. I’m not being disrespectful, just highlighting your inconsistencies of argument. 
P.S. the modelling of climate change is actually really accurate, but I doubt you have read a single study on them judging by what you’re saying. Again, not being disrespectful, just pointing out the obvious 
I see you have made up your mind, regardless of being presented with facts, so I will no longer reply to you.
As other users have pointed out, do you only pull the facts out of IPCC literature that confirm your preconceptions? You may benefit from learning about confirmation bias (only remembering facts that suit your world view).
Thanks for being kind, @PhilT. As this is my first ever research survey, it obviously hasn’t been a perfect and smooth experience for us researchers or the generous participants who give up their time to give me honest feedback. While I can’t reveal the exact thing I’m researching yet (doing so would render the data unusable), I do appreciate your efforts to appease the two users who seem to be getting upset over facts of reality.
And yes @postulative, if I can figure out how to turn the results into a link, I sure will post it here!
Hahaha, yeah I didn’t catch that hiccup until quite a few days after I had published the survey. That is my consequence for creating the demographic questions at 1am. Oops!
My apologies for not being at the standard of a career researcher for my first survey as a student researcher. I promise I’ll try harder next time!
No PhD for me just yet, as @zevon1956 suggested. This is just an extra-curricular assignment I chose to take on because it suits my career path perfectly. I actually paid money through my uni fees to conduct this research, so you don’t have to worry about me robbing your taxes - just yet
Thank you for your fresh perspective, I can’t bust all the pseudoscientific myths in one video. People come up with far too many conspiracies for me to fit into one short video.
Long story short:
Again, thanks to everyone who has responded so far! I’m really happy with how many participants I’ve gained. <3
If you haven’t tried it yet, please do consider contributing to science for the greater good!
I hope you have a relatively thick skin I’ve put together some surveys over the years, and I’ve also copped some criticism when I’ve got it wrong - and I have got it wrong - not an easy gig - but I think in most cases I learned from it.
Climate change does seem to be a controversial subject - and rightly so. For me it seems a little abstract at times, the planet has gone through some amazing change in the last 5000 years (if you are a young-earther) or some billions of years (if you aren’t a young earther - but lets not get into that, I’m not a young earther but try to understand others views).
One thing that is really valuable about this forum is the vast range of views it brings together. It is really hard sometimes to put aside very strongly held views and just hear another person - and thats ok, thats what strong views are all about. I’d hate to think where we’d be if nobody had strong views - and for that reason alone I appreciate people expressing them even when I don’t understand why they have them - it’s always interesting to hear them and sit them against what I think, even when I’m not sure what I think !!
Thanks for sharing the survey - it would be very interesting to see the results here on the forum.
You have again avoided the main point of my opinion, ie your survey doesn’t allow me or anyone else to express fully what we think You state things as if they are fact when they are opinion based on computer modelling. The models may be correct or they may be incorrect. I suggest only time will tell. I also suggest nothing we do will make any difference (opinion, not fact- please note that). You have referred to my opinions as “less than gentle”, and “baseless”. Further to that, you will no longer reply to me. Hardly scientific method and in my opinion, despite your denial, is disrespectful. I would never treat you in that manner, no matter how much I disagree with your opinions.
Wikipedia (as a quick source for a concise definition) says: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective and scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.”
“Every few years it issues a detailed Assessment Report. It is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors and reviewers from dozens of countries citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies”.
I am bemused by your logic that it was “cherry picked”. Why should I not use a fact published by the UNIPCC? What better provenance could it have?
May I suggest you read “The Whole History of Climate”, by the American geologist E Kirsten Peters. In it, she engagingly describes how geologists over the past 200 years have gradually revealed the history of the earth’s climate through their study of rocks and landscapes.
[quote=“marmot, post:39, topic:14970”]
Why should I not use a fact …
[/quote]Context. Isolating one fact from many is known as cherry-picking.
Thems posting words!
Thank you for that question. (I am practicing my best pollie response to your Dorothy Dixer). For those who struggle with the concepts of climate sciences and how models work, and my guess is we have a few of them reading, or perhaps not reading, this is a decent link that describes how the models are initialised.
and despite a segment of the population rejecting the science here is a touch of reality on the quality of it all. That being written the butterfly effect can kick in, however the number of models show similar trends that would require lots of butterflies doing exactly the same thing at the same time and what are the odds?
