Ever since what Gibbon derisively called “Praetorian bands” took control of the Roman Principate, it is known that a good societal outcome means different things for different… bands.

Bad economy for some means excellent economy for others… Bad society for some, is good for others. What the plutocrats love is serfdom, and war, properly managed, help them that way.

Great climate disruption will bring ever more war, perhaps even nuking coal burning installations (yes, it sounds crazy, until the sea starts rising real fast, hence the interest in tracking the Arctic icepack!) Thus most plutocrats see in the climate catastrophe, a great opportunity.

“All men naturally hate each other.” said the very Christian Pascal, nearly 4 centuries ago (“Thoughts, # 210). He was exaggerating a bit. But it is something to remember when we put our fate, that of billions, in the hands of an oligarchy of a handful, of a demonstrably clueless, individuals.

That a few scientists make great noise supporting fossil fuel burning is not surprising they hate, and they love money, power, career… But this is a new age, where the commons can get the best information.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Of course, as you say, constructing the question when seeking to poll opinions is 90% of the game. One can more or less ‘lead’ the answer if one is not adhering to the well-defined rules of market research. The BBC series shown in 2008, The Century of the Self, looked deeply into market research, focus groups and much more besides and showed how it could be used to ‘manipulate’ the audience.

Ergo, someone working so hard to deny the truth, as you claim Lindzen is doing, will have deep and compelling reasons for so doing. In the end, nature will show us all the way it is heading.

I say “would like to think” because, as you know, I have been troubled by a recent opinion poll suggesting that only 43% of the British adult population felt able to agree with the following statement:
“Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities”

It has been suggested to me that this question is carefully phrased to deter people from saying “yes” (i.e. they might agree that warming is occurring and/or that humans are the primary cause; but they might not agree that vehicles and factories are the primary source of emissions). However, this is ‘clutching at straws’ in my opinion; and leaves me wondering what percentage of the population would feel able to agree with this statement:
“The sunrise is a fact and is mostly caused by a near-spherical Earth rotating daily and orbiting the Sun yearly.”…?

I am so incensed by this highly-selective refusal to accept what scientists tell us that I have decided to re-ignite my Lindzengate campaign to bring to wider attention what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt by Richard Lindzen to misrepresent science to the great majority of the population.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/are-you-negligent-incompetent-or-complicit/

I would welcome anyone re-publishing this on the basis that I alone am responsible for any statements (of opinion) made therein.