The press release that launched the controversial Act on Co2 ‘Bedtime Story’ adverts cites a specially commissioned YouGov opinion poll. As this campaign was aimed specifically at climate sceptics I thought it might be worth seeing, so I made an FOIA application to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for a copy, together with any explanatory material and analysis relating to it that they might hold.
I wasn’t the only person who was curious about that survey. A lecturer in Science Communication at Imperial College, London called Alice Bell – who also runs a very nice blog and is definitely not a climate sceptic– also contacted the DECC and asked if she could see a copy of the poll results. After all, the DECC’s press release described the survey as ‘Research published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change ….’, and then dwelt at length on the disgraceful level of scepticism about AGW that this revealed. As published research, how could this possibly be a secret?
Here is what the DECC told Alice:
This survey carried out [sic] was developed with earlier creative development research in mind that had been carried out by DECC which tested the chosen creative route for the campaign. Unfortunately, we are not able to publish this set of research findings.
The results of the survey which you saw in our press notice for the launch of the campaign included all of the topline results so there isn’t really anything you haven’t seen already.
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/10/open_access_research_in_advert.html
Which seems a little bit strange.
Alice, who has also studied the Sociology of Education, would be likely to take quite as much interest in the way in which the questions were asked as the answers that they received, and the press release only mentions the results without saying what the questions were. This is what she has to say about the DECC’s response to her request:
So, it appears that the publication of research which the press release is ostensibly about was, in fact, the bullet point summary provided by the press release itself. How very postmodern.
The cynical sociologist in me suspects this ‘timely research’ (conducted days before the ad’s launch) is just window dressing. Costuming a press release to look like a notification of research, rather than the ad-for-an-ad it really is, lends the project some credibility and provides content which, at least at face value, is slightly more newsworthy than what’s going to be on telly during Corrie’s commercial break. It is nothing more than a ‘9 out of 10 cats prefer’ marketing exercise; a shampoo-advert ‘science bit’.
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/10/open_access_research_in_advert.html
She emailed DECC again saying that she was considering making a request under the FOIA. That produced results that she describes on her blog:
Update to the update (13:40, 4th Nov) – two more emails from the DECC. Credit where credit is due: they’ve submitted my email as an official FOI request and an offer to discuss the work over the phone. Good stuff.
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/11/update_research_on_climate_cha.html
And here is what happened next:
Update to the update (11:10, 6th Nov) – Just had very interesting, useful, intelligent and (most important) open phone conversation with a DECC press officer. She clarified that they had no problem emailing me the survey (it is already in my inbox) – any appearance of it being hidden was just the marketing team being careful. She was happy to admit that the small yougov survey in question was entirely commissioned for PR purposes (still over 1000 respondents, so in area of credible national research, but basically designed to produce newsworthy information).
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/11/update_research_on_climate_cha.html
So she got her copy of the opinion poll pretty quickly.
My experience was a little different. A FOIA request was sent on 3rd November and, although the act requires a prompt acknowledgement of requests, I had to email DECC again on 10th November as I had heard nothing from them. That didn’t receive a response either, but on 1st December I got an email with the survey attached, exactly 20 working days after I made my request. The legislation requires that information should be supplied within 20 working days, so the DECC had evidently opted for the longest possible delay before complying in spite of someone else having been sent the survey almost immediately nearly a month previously.
There would seem to be a considerable difference in the way in which a lecturer in Science Communication at Imperial College – unlikely to be a climate sceptic – gets treated by the DECC and the way they handle a sceptical blogger’s request; they would have known that I run a blog. Whenever I make an FOIA request I use the Harmless Sky address so there can be no question of concealment.
Before I begin to look at the results of an opinion poll I like to read through all the questions. This is a useful exercise as it can alert you to any bias on the part of the pollsters. Here are the questions used in the YouGov poll:
Do you think climate change will significantly affect you?
When do you think the results of climate change will have an impact in the UK? (Please tick the option that BEST applies)
If you knew climate change was going to seriously affect your children’s lives in the future would you make changes to your lifestyle NOW?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
“My actions as an individual can help stop the effects of climate change”Which, if any, of the following do you think will happen in the UK as a result of climate change? [Please tick all that apply]
There seems to be something missing, doesn’t there? The DECC press release makes it perfectly clear that their advertising campaign is specifically aimed at climate sceptics, and that the £6m cost of the campaign is justified by a high degree of scepticism in the UK population as revealed by this survey. But there is no question that allows respondents to say that they are sceptical about global warming. The nearest it gets to that is allowing the people to say that they do not expect to be ‘significantly’ affected by climate change. This question, and all the others, are framed with the assumption that global warming – presumably anthropogenic– is happening, and that there is no room for doubt.
But there is something worse. Here is the first paragraph of the DECC press release:
Research published today from the Department of Energy and Climate Change reveals that over 50% of people questioned don’t believe climate change will affect them and only 1 in 5 (18%) respondents think that climate change will take effect during their children’s lifetime.
That does rather imply that the research was conducted for the purpose of assessing the degree of scepticism in the UK population but, according to what the DECC finally told Alice Bell, that was the last thing on their mind. The survey was commissioned as a means of creating publicity, and presumably the questions and the way in which they were framed reflects that intention.
It would seem that this is another case of ‘If it promotes the cause of climate change then it doesn’t really matter whether what you tell the punters is true’. Just like those adverts that the Advertising Standards Authority has now banned.
H/T to Alice Bell, of course.
A typically meaningless survey. But encouraging that the public are so sceptical despite the warmist bias in the questions.
Q2 is unclear – ‘When do you think CC will have an impact’. What sort of ‘climate change? Natural or man-made? And what sort of impact? An insignificant one like 0.7oC/century warming or flowers blooming 2 weeks early? Or a deadly impact – flooding, drought, starvation?
26% said it already has had an impact. I’d agree – we don’t have frost fairs on the Thames any more like we did in the little ice age. And we don’t grow grapes in the North like we did in the Medieval warm period. So natural climate change has had an impact. What a daft question.
Q3 implies that ‘changing your lifestyle’ can have an effect on the weather. It’s a shame that only 15% spotted this as nonsense. We sceptics need to work on this area. It’s patent nonsense and superstition. As long as the 75% of the public believe it the CO2 taxing and climate profiteering scam will continue.
MMGWsceptic: ‘A typically meaningless survey. But encouraging that the public are so sceptical despite the warmist bias in the questions.’
No, the results show that we are remarkably unquestioning. It’s possible that the 33% who reckon they will be significantly affected by climate change weren’t thinking of local UK impacts or were thinking of the various positives that the survey neglected to mention but it’s more likely that they are a subset of the 69% who have been taken in by all the government propaganda about a significant increase in British ‘droughts, floods and heatwaves’. (DEFRA’s UKCP09 shows no trend in drought frequency versus temperature and admits that our climate is too variable for drought frequency to be modelled meaningfully, so essentially its warnings are based on ahistorical guesswork.)
That strange opinion poll and its even stranger deployment are a small but perfect illustration of governmental dishonesty and of how routine it now is. Apart from the issues that you and Alice Bell have raised, there’s that ‘only 1 in 5 (18%) respondents think that climate change will take effect during their children’s lifetime’. Well, perhaps. But 60% think it will take effect during their children’s lifetime or earlier, which is what that dramatic ‘only’ leads you to suspect they are talking about. And there’s a very big difference – a significant difference, even – between thinking that climate change won’t significantly (underlined) affect you and thinking that it won’t affect you at all.
And Joan Ruddock: ‘The results show that people don’t realize that climate change is already underway and could have very severe consequences for their children’s lives.’
Eh? More than a quarter think it’s already underway in the UK and about three-quarters would …
Oh, I can’t be bothered. Government blather. Nuff said.
Incidentally, does anyone know of a definitive tally of UK government spending on COP15 propaganda? I had a go a couple of months ago and it’s definitely more than the £6 million spent on the Act on CO2 campaign. The rest of it, though, is scattered all over the place and is often mixed up with general climate-change puffery (e.g. FCO programmes, grants to charities and artists, and ambiguous areas where the EU and the UK meet) and I got bored totting it up.
TonyN
As an outsider to the UK scene, I would have a question: Does the DECC concern show that the public opinion tide on AGW has turned in the UK?
It would seem so.
The poll is aimed at “skeptics”, especially the trick question:
Who would not tick “yes” if they (a) “knew climate change was going to seriously affect your children’s lives in the future” and (b) believed that your “actions as an individual can help stop the effects of climate change”?
If the respondent answered “no” to either (a) or (b), then the question is rhetorical.
But, even so, “make changes to your lifestyle” is vague enough, as well (and not very threatening, since it implies a mater of “personal choice”, so even a skeptic may have ticked “yes”, simply because of the way the question was worded.
But, of course, allowing the public to “choose individual lifestyle changes” is not at all what is being dreamed up by the EU commissioners. As a starter, the proposed “carbon tax” will cost the UK’s 61 million residents an estimated £3.2 billion or £53 for every man, woman and child. And there is no doubt that it would increase, once enacted.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=1051
The questions are so worded to result in a pro-AGW bias. This may help DECC sell the message that the “public is responding more positively than we had anticipated”, but I believe that DECC is only fooling itself with this approach.
Max
I’m not certain I approve of the terminology “chosen creative route for the campaign………”
This sounds a bit like government sponsored propagandizing to convince people to believe something that they are unlikely to believe ……through subterfuge.
Why would a (government sponsored) “campaign” need to be launched if the evidence supporting the theory is irrefutable?
In effect, this bureaucrat is admitting that the government is in the business of “promoting” an unproven scientific hypothetical to advance a revenue scheme.
Underhanded to say the least……………
Some good comments here. In addition to the very perfunctory quality of DECC’s “timely research”, there is an aspect that still puzzles me. Where are the studies in which researchers have asked us why we are sceptical of CAGW?
(Obviously, we consider ourselves rational people who have found the arguments for catastrophic man-made climate change unconvincing, but those who are convinced by those arguments would surely consider themselves just as rational.)
You’d think that would be an important thing for them to be interested in finding out, given that we appear to be in a majority here. However, what I’ve read so far, mostly in the national press, is more along the lines of pure guesswork – that we’re “in denial of reality”, “overwhelmed”, “fearful”, “apathetic”, etc. I may have missed it (maybe someone can point me in the right direction, in that case) but there doesn’t appear to have been much of an attempt to find out from us why we think the way we do.
There are some interesting questions they could consider. What exactly makes one person an AGW-believer and the next person an AGW-sceptic? Are there any personal traits or mindsets that sceptics (or believers, for that matter) have in common with one another?
There’s plenty of speculation around, e.g., Peter Martin’s direct equation of AGW-scepticism and right-wing/libertarian politics – although this is a notion that few of us who comment here would agree with, at least it has the makings of a testable hypothesis. But has any psychologist made a half-way objective attempt to find out what sort of people we are (i.e., what motivates us, what do we value, how do we see the world)?
My own speculation on that subject is that far from being “overwhelmed”, “afraid”, “rejecting reality”, etc., we CAGW sceptics, as a group, are generally in robust psychological and emotional health. And here’s another speculation – maybe DECC, DEFRA and other departments/organisations who might be in a position to fund such a study, are hesitating to do this because they suspect that they wouldn’t like the results. If the government’s measures to get us all on-message about CO2 were failing (which it appears they currently are) and if we CAGW-sceptics were at least as mentally healthy, well-adjusted and well-informed as the believers, what would be the implications?
Alex;
I’d be astonished if the kind of opinion research that you are talking about does not exist, and probably in abundance.
Our government for the last thirteen years is nothing if not thorough when it comes to manipulating how their policies are perceived by the electorate. Such research would be crucial to determining how best to do this.
All it probably needs is someone with the time, patience, determination and knowledge of the FOIA to go digging. But they would need a great deal of time, patience and determination because government departments are becoming very good at procrastination and obfuscation when they are faced with requests for information that might be embarrassing if it became public. I speak from bitter experience.
Some of the green eNGOs have probably covered the same ground as an aid to fine-tuning their campaigns, but again, such information is likely to be closely guarded.
The problem is that the people who are likely to most want to know the answers to the very astute questions you are posing are also those who are least likely to share their knowlege with others who might ‘misunderstand’ it.
If only scepticism really was a well coordinated and well funded movement with even a fraction of the spending power of its opponents.
Alex Cull
This has been discussed on another thread here before, but your “why” question lies at the very heart of the AGW debate.
If those supporting the dangerous AGW premise take the stand that those who do not support this premise cannot possibly be doing so for true reasons of rational skepticism and are, therefore, either acting out of religious, political or selfish economic reasons or are simply uninformed (in which case it is just a matter of informing them accordingly), then they are fooling themselves.
PeterM appears to have fallen into this trap. In his stated view, Robin (or I) cannot possibly be rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise because of the “science” (or lack thereof) supporting it, so it must be for one of the other irrational reasons mentioned above. Politics or religion are his two favorites.
But by taking this stand, PeterM is unable or unwilling to truly understand the “why” that is motivating his debate partner (Robin or myself), and is therefore unable to carry on an effective debate.
If elected policy-makers take such a stand, it is a bit like “whistling in the dark” or “sticking the head in the sand”: it makes them feel secure short term in their belief that they must be right. Yet, at the same time it weakens their long-term ability to see that they are losing the debate, and will eventually lose the political support upon which their continued tenure in the elected office depends. Astute politicians will not stay in this trap very long. Less astute ones will not stay in elected office very long.
Conversely, an effective rational skeptic must try to understand “why” the believer in the dangerous AGW premise takes this stand (let’s ignore those few who may be doing so purely in the hopes of personal gain and concentrate on the others).
Is he truly afraid that AGW is real and dangerous based on what he has been told by persons of authority (i.e. motivated by fear), is he caught up in some sort of an irrational, pseudo-religious, guilt-driven “doomsday cult” mentality, is it based on underlying anti-capitalistic or anti-industrial political reasons or is it based on a non-emotional (i.e. rational) concern for the future of our planet based on a careful analysis of the scientific rationale behind the premise?
If we, as rational skeptics, assume that those who disagree with us do so for irrational reasons, we also weaken our ability to effectively debate the issues with them in a rational manner.
So the sword cuts both ways.
Max
It has been said by Warmists, (if you press me I’ll find the quote), that the “science” behind the global warming theory doesn’t matter………what matters (to the Warmists) are the programs/taxes/regulations imposed in the name of global warming.
It isn’t at all about the environment, polar bears, ice caps or mankind………it is about restructuring society to better reflect their personal ideologies/beliefs…….it’s about societal control, manipulation, taxation, and philosophical beliefs.
I’m sure there are some, (I’ll give Peter Martin the benefit of doubt), that truly believe that unabated manmade global warming will mean the ultimate demise of all life species………..I also believe that Peter Martin would advocate that the only way to achieve curtailing manmade global warming is through government regulation and surrender of personal liberties.
However, the politics behind the message has nothing to do with science or environmental issues……it’s all about controlling the means of production.
This government agency has crossed the line from responsible governmental policy to propagandizing to support a specific political ideology/lifestyle.
I think the difference Max is that my beliefs regarding the issue don’t include imposing those beliefs on others through government intervention.
My views on the topic don’t include legislation that effect other people…….
TonyN:
You say (#7) you’d “astonished if the kind of opinion research that [Alex was] talking about does not exist, and probably in abundance”. I disagree. I’d be astonished if it did – especially the “in abundance” bit. Although it’s true that it would serve Government’s purposes well if it thoroughly understood how people really felt about its policies – just as such understanding would help the eNGOs to fine tune their campaigns – it’s been my experience that people who are convinced they have a “mission” commonly (and foolishly) do not really wish to understand views that may conflict with theirs – the “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” phenomenon. Government is no exception.
Here’s an example. In 2002, Tony Blair launched the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) – an extraordinarily ambitious project to revolutionise NHS computing systems. Now, it’s best practice in any project to ensure that, from the outset, end users are engaged and supportive. And, re NHS IT, the key end users are the doctors. In 2003, I was chairman of an online polling organisation that specialised in determining the views of doctors on professional issues. We found (in a major survey sponsored by a national newspaper) that doctors were far from supportive – indeed were very sceptical – of NPfIT. These views were rejected by the Department of Health as “unhelpful”. So we offered to do a survey for the DoH, designed in cooperation with them. They agreed and the results confirmed the earlier survey. Again, the results were rejected and the DoH said it would commission a series of (far more expensive) private and very detailed surveys of doctors’ views from a competitor (MORI). The first two of these confirmed our findings and the DoH cancelled the MORI project. From thereon, doctors’ (increasingly critical) views were ignored. As you doubtless know, NPfIT has been a complete and almost unbelievably expensive disaster. I have no doubt that, had doctors’ views been heard, that need not have happened.
I wish I could agreee with Alex, that we owe our intelligent scepticism to our psychological well-being. Unfortunately, being right isn’t the same thing as being sane, and I’m afraid I share many of the same obsessive traits as the warmists. They’re obsessed about the world overheating; I’m obsessed by the idea of a world run by warmists.
(I once mentioned my obsession with the global warming movement to my psychoanalyst. She shrugged her shoulders and said “hystérie de masse”; presumably she thinks it will all blow over like any other fashion).
On the psychology of warmists, there’s a commenter at Climate Resistance, PeterS, who gives a devastating psychoanalytic analysis of the warmist mindset. But as Manacker rightly observes at #8, you can’t use it in rational argument.
On the likelihood of government research into scepticism, I’m not so sure that there would be any sociological research into us, simply because we are too insignificant to count statistically, and therefore impossible to track down by survey methods. Hence the incoherence of the questionnaire noted by TonyN. There are all sorts of reasons why the answers will be skewed by the level of interest and knowledge of the respondent. Everyone posting here might tick “very concerned by climate change” or “don’t believe in climate change” according to the way the question was posed.
I believe Peter Martin is right to see a connection with right-wing libertarian politics – a position espoused openly by Andrew Mountford, Jeff Id, and Brute, for instance. (Brute, I come from the opposite end of the political universe, but I’m a Ron Paul supporter). And Brute is undoubtedly right to see a connection between Warmism (or Thermomania) and a certain kind of managerial state socialism, exemplified by a UN functionary like Maurice Strong, now running his business interests from retirement in Beijing.
The analysis of what makes a warmist or a sceptic won’t advance until the distinction is made between the committed minority like ourselves, who obsess on blogs for or against, and the majority who are not interested in the science (or the politics) and respond emotionally.
Brute
True.
You do not believe in “forcing” your views (and proposed “solutions” to a “problem”, which you alone see as “critical to everyone’s survival”) on others (who do not share your view), while those supporting drastic carbon taxes to “save the planet” obviously do.
And this is a key difference, which boils down to how highly one values individual liberty and freedom and how much trust one places in “big government” to decide and implement what is best for us all.
But I was trying to address the “WHY” question raised by Alex Cull.
As long as PeterM (as an example) believes that anyone who is rationally skeptical of the science supporting the whole AGW hysteria is doing so for personal economic, political or religious reasons, rather than because he is rationally skeptical of the science, he (Peter) will be unable to debate effectively with a rational skeptic.
As long as politicians delude themselves into thinking the same thing, they also are unable to see what is really going on out there.
And if we, who are skeptical of the AGW premise and scare, assume that all those who support it are either quasi-religious nut cases, communists bent on bringing capitalism to its knees or opportunists hoping to make a buck out of the hysteria, we also have a problem carrying on a rational debate on the real issues.
That was simply my point.
Max
Max,
Yes, my mistake. This particular thread is sort of murky (I don’t think I’m doing a very good job of conveying my thoughts).
I suppose the bottom line is that this agency conducted a survey and didn’t like the results as it didn’t support their agenda…..so they (attempted) to bury it.
The way that I took it is that this agency has taken a biased stand on a topic where they should remain neutral.
Of course, how neutral could an agency titled “Department of Energy and Climate Change” possibly be?
Geoff:
Although it’s true that, as you say, the way someone answers a survey will inevitably reflect their level of interest and knowledge, a professionally drafted questionnaire (unlike the one referred to above) would be designed to ensure that the answers are not “skewed”. It should, for example, ensure that answers would properly reflect the views of everyone posting here. The reason an unprofessionally drafted survey is employed is usually because its sponsor wishes to be sure it gets a particular result. Shame, in this case, on YouGov for allowing itself to be used in this way.
Below is my attempt to give you an example of proper drafting – necessary in my view to establish a full answer to the first YouGov question above. (The others would require equally radical redrafting – this would inevitably (and properly) be a long survey.) Note: this was done quickly and could certainly be improved – but it illustrates how careful the drafting must be to ensure a proper result.
1. Do you think that the world’s climate changes?
Yes
No (go to Question xx / leave the survey) – [as appropriate, depending on later questions].
Don’t know (go to Question xx / leave the survey)
[In a good online survey, it’s possible to make the “go to Q xx” process automatic and invisible to the respondent.]
2. Do you think that the world’s climate has always changed or has done so only recently (e.g. global warming)?
Always changed
Changed only recently
I think it changes but has not changed recently (Go to Question yy /leave the survey)
Don’t know
.
3. Do you think that human activity (such as the emission of “greenhouse gases”) contributed to recent climate change?
Yes – the sole cause
Yes – a significant contribution
Yes – a slight contribution
No – human activity had nothing to do with recent climate change
Don’t know
.
4. Do you think climate change is likely to affect you?
Yes, it could be very damaging
Yes, it could be slightly damaging
Yes, it could be very beneficial
Yes, it could slightly beneficial
No, it is unlikely to affect me
Don’t know
.
Brute #14
I think TonyN and Alice Bell correctly identified the purpose of the survey; it was to flesh out a press release announcing the ad campaign, and I therefore see nothing wrong with having a rather partial and inadequate survey. If you’re going to spend £6million on an ad campaign, it’s sensible to spend a few thousand more on a survey to advertise the ads.
The interesting research would be that conducted before the campaign, in order to determine attitudes of the target audience. But that will have been done by the ad agency, and therefore is probably not susceptible to FOI requests.
Robin #16
As an ex-market researcher, I admire your courage in trying to draft a decent questionnaire. I think the problem comes from the ambiguity of the term “climate change” and no careful drafting can get round that. “Do I think the world’s climate changes?” “Yes, every morning and evening”. “No, it follows the same natural rhythm every year / glaciation period…” And of course it is precisely the committed believers / sceptics who are most likely to be suspicious of the question and give the “wrong” answer, or an answer from which the wrong deductions will be made. If you look at the famous survey which found that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change, you’ll find it difficult to answer “no”.
The example you give at #11 is depressing and only too believable. I did market research for government ad campaigns in an earlier geological period, under Callaghan and Thatcher, and I found the civil servants at the COI extremely objective and thorough. Of course, a government minister is free to ignore advice, whether from market research or anywhere else. In the private sector this rarely happens, because it is likely to reduce profits. But in government …
Robin
Let me take your test:
1. Do you think that the world’s climate changes?
Yes.
2. Do you think that the world’s climate has always changed or has done so only recently (e.g. global warming)?
Always changed.
3. Do you think that human activity (such as the emission of “greenhouse gases”) contributed to recent climate change?
Yes – a slight contribution
4. Do you think climate change is likely to affect you?
No, it is unlikely to affect me
Max
PS Let’s see how Peter responds.
TonyN #7
You say: “I’d be astonished if the kind of opinion research that you are talking about does not exist, and probably in abundance. Our government for the last thirteen years is nothing if not thorough when it comes to manipulating how their policies are perceived by the electorate. Such research would be crucial to determining how best to do this”
Which sounds so logical I have difficulty saying why I don’t think it’s true.
First, the behaviour of Brown and others in describing as “nutters” or “flat-earthers” those who, according to opinion polls, may constitute a majority of the population, is flatly at variance with their behaviour in every other policy area. On any other subject, the government slavishly follows its focus groups, but on climate change, as Robin notes (#11), the government behaves as if it has a mission.
As Climate Resistance tirelessly points out, environmentalism fills the gap left when you take the politics out of politics. Could it be that a political system which considers public opinion, the press, the churches, etc. as infinitely malleable, is clinging to science as the one source of objective truth, the one untouchable authority? It’s the tribal totem of western democracies, which has replaced nationalism, class consciousness, religious or regional identity as the one thing which cannot be questioned. Of course, it’s difficult to rally public enthusiasm around the search for the Higgs Boson, so the deification of science has to take a form which affects people’s lives – not necessarily today – in some radical and inevitable fashion.
(Remember the articles about crackpot scientists which used to be a staple of the rightwing press, complaining about the waste of public money? They’ve completely disappeared, now that the humblest worm may hold the clue to understanding the history of our climate).
I’m not the first to suggest that “scientism” is at the heart of modern politics. It would help to explain why, on this subject, as on no other, governments feel little need to bow to public opinion, or even to explore it.
creative development research
Isn’t that what the CRU are involved in..?
It’s also interesting to pick up on the falling-out between DECC and green ad agency Futerra; remember this article (and following epic thread) in the Guardian, where Ed Gillespie is somewhat scathing about the Bedtime Stories ads.
There seem to be two general approaches at work – one is the carrot approach favoured by Futerra, e.g., in their “sell the sizzle” campaign to attract us all to “low carbon heaven”. The other is the “your puppy will drown” stick approach as preferred by DECC. Futerra’s Solitaire Townsend criticises the ActonCO2 ads here:
“The notion of changing the audience rather than the message is at the heart of the ‘identity campaigning’ concept led by WWF. Identity campaigning argues that we shouldn’t accept the basic psychology of our audience – but seek to change it.
This means re-programming people’s values away from consumption, status and selfish desires and towards collective awareness and a closer relationship with our place in the natural world. Actually this drives us bonkers, especially because implicit is the message ‘if only everyone else thought and acted like us everything would be okay’.”
Actually, I think that either way, they’re still trying to change the psychology of the audience, just in one case being more subtle about it. Either way, sexy carrot or scary stick, they’re not actually listening to us, or if they seem to be listening, it’s just to target us more precisely. See this blog about the green way to segment audiences:
“Understanding these types of people and their motivations is very important to anyone who wants to sell stuff or create a communications campaign that raises awareness, changes hearts and minds and effects behavioural change.”
Robin, re the test, for me it’s 1. Yes. 2. Always changed. 3. Yes – a slight contribution. 4. Don’t know. (Re 4, my reasoning is that over the decades, warming and cooling have an effect on growing seasons, thus on harvests, food supplies and food prices, but the ramifications are probably difficult to predict, hence – don’t know.)
I’ve probably posted this link before (apologies if so and you’ve seen all this already) but there’s a very good article called Big “Climate” Brother on EU Referendum which lists plenty of other additional (and expensive!) campaigns to promote “pro-environmental behavioural change”. Well worth a glance, I think.
Alex Cull
Your “Big Brother” article is chilling.
The amount of 2.6 million pounds may not sound like a lot of money but a) it is probably only the tip of the iceberg, and (more outrageously) b) it is UK taxpayer money being spent to brainwash the UK taxpayer (into accepting even more taxes, among other things).
This is outrageous, and I hope someone exposes the spendthrift bureaucrats that authorized these useless expenditures. Heads should roll.
Max
£6 million spent on a thousand sceptic survey. If they ahd sent me 2 I & a friend would have filled them both out for that. I thought there were some politicians saying that cutting government expeniture was going to be hard & would have to cut “front line services”.
£6 million spent on a thousand sceptic survey
£6000 per head, then? Perhaps the recent suggestions about possible government efficiency savings are not so far fetched, after all. Getting them to do it is another matter, of course.