The starting position many have is that Trump, Farage and other populists have stated it is a lie. This is, of course, a statement they can make because climate change is not a law of physics. It is a best guess based on available data, like dinosaurs, evolution, geological ages and pretty much anything said by neurologists about the brain and cosmologists about the heavens. Where there is doubt, even small, there is room for political opportunism.
It also feeds into their narrative of independent energy security and the support of "traditional" industries i.e. where their blue collar vote comes from. These are not altogether terrible points, although their short termism is my issue.
Sticking with fossil also avoids the high upfront cost of a move to "green" energy - a point even the hardiest green energy advocate cannot argue with. That is the driver behind this, not the "questionable" science. And it means cheaper bills and more cash in your pocket just when it is needed - again, right now. Always a vote winner.
The trouble is the anti evidence is always so suspect. Take the poll you cite. You reference the outcome but take it at face value that the pollster was scrupulously independent; that the questions were fair; that the responses have been properly assessed, reported and so on. Anyone with memory of that Yes Prime Minister sketch knows what I am talking about.
China are investing heavily in green and I suspect India will shortly follow. There is no pressure whatever on those countries to do that. Indeed, they would not do so at such personal cost with the economic advantage it would hand to their trade rivals if they thought for one second the scientific evidence was suspect.
The USA and a couple of like minded countries will shortly be the few standing alone on this. And we both know what we think of that bloke on the high street with the sandwich-board yelling that everyone else is crazy.
England
