Met Office & Their Opinion Poll
By Paul Homewood
Quite what does any of this have to do with the Met Office?
Polling by the Met Office shows that over half the British public are consciously making low-carbon choices, with nearly two thirds wanting to do more.
In a YouGov survey, a representative sample of the British public was asked about the action they are taking to reduce their carbon footprint and their perceptions on if people in the UK are doing enough to reduce their carbon footprint.
The data shows 59% of those surveyed are making conscious decisions to live a low-carbon lifestyle, including 17% who make these decisions even when it is inconvenient for them.
When asked if people in the UK are doing enough to lower their carbon footprints, nearly two thirds (65%) of respondents said we should be doing more.
Taking action now
Although the world is already committed to a level of global warming due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, action taken now to reduce our carbon footprint will help prevent the most dangerous impacts from climate change in the future.
Head of Climate Services at the Met Office, Professor Jason Lowe OBE, said: “Everyone can see that we’re experiencing frequent extreme weather, and an increasing number of these damaging events can be shown to have been influenced by human-induced climate change. What is interesting in these survey results is that the UK public are already engaged in reducing their carbon footprints and many people indicate they want to do more.
“The only way we are going to avoid the very worst impacts from climate change is by lowering our emissions of greenhouse gases, and quickly. But we also need to adapt our lifestyles and the world around us to cope with the impacts from the climate change we’re already committed to.”
Extreme weather and climate change
The survey also found that three-quarters (76%) of the public say that they believe that climate change plays a role in extreme weather. An example of a recent extreme in the UK attributed to climate change is the unprecedented heat in July 2022 when 40.3°C was recorded for the first time. Of those surveyed one third (34%) believe climate change is fully responsible for extreme weather events happening while 42% believe climate change is partly responsible for extreme weather events happening, but there are other important factors.
Dr Camilla Mathison, lead on Climate Mitigation Science at the Met Office, said: “Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also have additional benefits for society, with even small changes to daily life making a big difference when it comes to your carbon footprint. A simple example is personal travel, by walking or cycling short journeys you are not only saving CO2 emissions but also improving air quality and improving your personal health.”
It is not the job of the Met Office to conduct polls. And it most certainly is not their job to influence policy or publish propaganda, which is not even true, for instance:
“Everyone can see that we’re experiencing frequent extreme weather”
Their main role, and some would argue the only role, is to provide weather forecasts, as their own website makes clear.
They should not be wasting taxpayers’ money on anything else.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
These polls depend on the questions: everyone wants a better world. The proles have been inundated with brainwash material about AGW, so would reply that they are concerned: in fact it is impressive that so many are unconcerned.
If the question was are you willing to forego income or have poorer health treatment to pay for these changes a different answer would be given, as in USA pols of the same type.
Jack, you are absolutely right. After decades of brainwashing and no counter-arguments in any of the main media I am astonished that 24% still do not believe the received “wisdom” that humans are responsible at all for changes in the climate, and a further 42% feel that any such impact is only partly due to our activities. Perhaps our education system is creating a generation of intelligent sceptical thinkers, at last!
A great deal more than 24% haven’t been taken in, it seems.
The worm is turning, Globally, ever-decreasing numbers believe climate change is a serious problem, now down to less than half:
In the recent Rasmussen poll, 60% said they believed climate change was a religion and all about power and control.
I have just received today’s email from The Met Office which states “greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) which are causing our planet to warm”. I have asked them what evidence they have for such a definite statement, will I get a reply? I’ll let you know.
Yet another poll where neither I, nor anyone I know, was canvassed. No doubt the audience was largely cherry-picked to get the “right” answers.
Yes, by the way, I totally agree – this is no business of the Met Office any more than lying to the public about the science is.
To be honest your comment is stupid. I’ve been asked questions by pollsters before but statistically speaking you shouldn’t be surprised that you haven’t been asked. I’ve no reason to doubt that this isn’t a properly weighted poll by Yougov. Rsspectable pollsters reputations would soon be trashed if they published fiddled polls.
The data isn’t out in the public domain yet. This is a link to a poll from a few months ago that has broadly similar results. You can see where the data came from, it’s all kosher. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/22/most-people-are-worried-about-climate-change-what-
To be honest, David, if you can’t be a little more polite, please don’t bother commenting on this site. For reasons that I won’t bore readers here with, I don’t believe that these surveys are generally unbiased nor – as in this case with a pathetic sample size of around 1,700 – generally statistically meaningful. I am not, however, going to call you names for having a different opinion.
Looking at recent political polling it is clear that the industry is in a complete mess, with results that diverge way beyond statistical sampling variation.
It should be remembered that the majority of pollster income comes from market research, which in large companies and government departments is often tied with advertising and designed to evaluate ad effectiveness. Of course, if ads are shown to be effective that promotes the advertising budget. The Met Office is no different. They also want to be able to say that 8 out of 10 climate cats preferred it as part of their advertising. The rules around truth in advertising are a lot more slack than those for political polling, and the political polling rules do not apply to polling about policy, where the customer gets what they want. See e.g. Khan’s ULEZ polling.
Oh look, someone who believes polls!
When YouGov first started, both I and my wife signed up to it.
Since then I have had five £50 payouts and two wins in their draw.
My wife has had one £50 payout and no draw wins.
Difference is, she’s honest!
“Rsspectable pollsters”
Diogonese is still looking for one.
Tell us also about respectable journalists.
Bit harsh!
“To be honest your comment is stupid.”
Not quite the way I would chose to influence people.
“I’ve no reason to doubt that this isn’t a properly weighted poll by Yougov.”
Naivety really is not a virtue
“Rsspectable (sic) pollsters reputations would soon be trashed if they published fiddled polls.”
Are you really trying to be taken seriously?
” it’s all kosher.”
About as kosher as a bacon sandwich.
You come across as somewhat strange. Why are you posting on here?
Last year I did a survey on what radio stations I listen to. In the days of Wogan and Bruce it would have been R2. Now despite their limited record collections I listen to a variety of commercial stations Boom, Greatest Hits and the like.
Whether my BBC boycott made any difference to them I seriously doubt but it was good to report, truthfully, a BBC radio free week
magesox: you are so right. Speaking as a “stupid little man” and such like terms (despite being FIChemE and Yachtmaster I) find it unnecesary to be abusive about people who hold different views. On the other hand its amazing how easy it is to wind these people up!
Vernon, you are so correct, and thank you your recent comment on a certain person. Being polite costs nothing. People with alternative opinions are fine in my book, but like you I am more than sceptical about polls which often are as flawed as an Amazon review. I spend my entire time looking at studies, usually done by management consultants, and all I find is flaws, usually major flaws in both the analysis and their conclusions. Conclusions often made by MBA’s with little practical experience. All that many have is an expensive degree from a business institution, taught by academics who have never visited the real world. These same consultants are deeply embedded in our society especially at governmental level and we are all feeling the consequences. From my point of view I am becoming ever more concerned about academia, world wide, because faking data in now becoming an industry. I work in the petrochemicals industry and I see our future security steadily being eroded by futile climate change mandates and woke policies.
Holding a different view is different from knowingly hiding information or promulgating lies.
No you are wrong. The sample size is determined statistically and to get representative it does not need to be huge. Claiming things without evidence is just silly.
Are we able to see the polling data?
Note that “climate action” is only number 13 in the UN’s list of “Sustainable Development Goals”. So effectively the call for net zero CO2 emissions only applies to the Western democracies. China, India et many al can continue to burn as much coal and emit as much CO2 as they wish.
The questions have to be phrased correctly. Questions involving Us/Government/someone doing the spemdingwill always get a more positive response than what are you going to spend personally
Why are we taxpayers still financing this redundant Billion Pound waste of resources which even the corrupt BBC cannot stand ?
“…action taken now to reduce our carbon footprint will help prevent the most dangerous impacts from climate change in the future.”
Reducing carbon footprints will take no CO2 already added out of the atmosphere. What it will do is make the fuels for all of the conventional ICE transportation required to make the transition to renewables and EV transportation less and less available and at a higher cost. Those shortages and higher costs will be more “dangerous” to global economies than what climate change might do in the future.
It’s simple job preservation.
If the Met Office can show folk say they’re concerned about weather, then an empire must be built to create weather scare stories.
The Met Office is now the propaganda arm of BEIS.
I think you mean that the Met Office is the propaganda arm of DESNZ. The name changes on a regular basis.
It appears their Prof Jason Lowe OBE is either ignorant or deliberately lying when he says “we are all experiencing increasing numbers of extreme weather events.
I’ve pointed this out to them via their contact page.
Here is a quote you may remember “To be honest your comment is stupid.”
Perhaps it may pay you to be a tad more polite to be taken seriously.
Oh grow up. You made a couple of claims. One was simply wrong on a quite basic level and the other has zero evidence.
If the British Propaganda Service we used to call the BEEB, keeps pumping out programmes and news stories telling everyone that CC is causing bad weather events – and more of them – then, when questioned about whether people think that CC causes bad weather they are bound, in the absence of any other information, to say yes.
Ironically, when Lineker was accusing the government of using ’30s language (propaganda) he missed his target: it’s nothing to do with immigration.
I found a story with more gravitas than the MO and their poll.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/ms-shopper-livid-after-buying-29514814
Whether or not climate change from CO2 in the atmosphere is real (and I don’t believe it is) people in Britain “reducing their carbon footprint” will make absolutely no difference to world CO2 emissions while China and India continue to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels. Heck, if Britain shut down completely and we all died it would STILL have no significant effect in the World. So how have all these worthy carbon reducers allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking they can make a difference?
Most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour anyway. CO2, however caused, is a very distant second in that league.
‘Bottom line, water vapor feedback is a huge (66% according to Pierrehumbert) part of the dangerous greenhouse gas hypothesis.’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/21/atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw-and-climate-change/
– – –
So much for ‘carbon footprint’ nonsense.
I’d rather weather forecasts which were occasionally accurate than puerile attempts at social engineering.
I object to the Met Office wasting my taxes on such frivolities and would like to know why they are fully subscribed to the myth that climate change is man made.
Lately the weather forecasts have been increasingly inaccurate Admittedly they are dealing with our climate which must be one of the most unstable in the world however the millions spent on them must be really unnecessary. A small office with a handful of staff could produce an equally good service. As for conducting surveys, we are not told how much they paid Yougov but whatever it is, it is, it is mis-spent money.
My Dad reckoned a shepherd with a piece of seaweed could do better – I don’t think he was far wrong.
The article stated, “When asked if people in the UK are doing enough to lower their carbon footprints, nearly two thirds (65%) of respondents said we should be doing more.”
Should read ‘over half said YOU should be doing more. . .’
Dr Camilla, claims cycling will improve my personal health.
I am not convinced that is the case judging by the latest rules added to the new Highway Code.
To me it suggests driving standards are falling therefore creating substantial risks to health.
Even walking is hazardous due to this plague of battery powered scooters; which seem to be more about boosting council’s coffers than improving quality of life.
This report smacks of desperation that the public do not believe the hype.
I’m unclear what business it is of the Met Office to improve my health, nor why a meteorologist thinks they know about health? There is in fact zero evidence that exercise does improve health or make you live longer despite the claims made.
The Government have just come out today with some documents that seem to indicate that they want to use Smart Meters to keep an even greater eye on us all…? could that be true ….? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smart-meter-system-based-internet-of-things-applications-programme
Going by the rate of the Smart(!) Meter rollout, the Greens are going to have to pull their fingers out with the heat pump rollout to meet their target!
“The latest results mean October 2022 has the second highest monthly total of the year so far, after March’s 224,000 smart meter installations.
There have now been 1.988mn installations in 2022 so far, and 19.3mn since the programme started in 2012.”
https://www.electralink.co.uk/2022/11/monthly-smart-meter-installs-growth-trend-october/#:~:text=The%20latest%20results%20mean%20October,the%20programme%20started%20in%202012.
And as far as I can tell, a very significant proportion of them don’t work.
So 19.3 mn have been installed, and according to this:
https://www.sms-plc.com/insights/government-to-extend-smart-meter-rollout-until-2024/
There are 37 million meters still to be installed.
They can FOAD. Net zero is a very stupid idea and anyone who believes in it should stop exhaling CO2 right now.
I have just read an article in the local rag claiming people are not cutting down their car use fast enough in order to keep with the Net Zero scam (European edition).
It gives the impression the powers that be are ramping up their fear mongering climate change propaganda.
The CC words are blooming everywhere. It would be rather boring only they are trying to control our lives way too much.
These power crazed loons really need to learn to relax and enjoy the ride :-
Car use across Bristol region needs to halve to meet net zero climate targets –
“Bristol Live” https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/car-use-across-bristol-region-8278146
I’m willing to believe maybe 10-15% of car journeys could be substituted but 50%? There’s no way of achieving that without coercion on a huge scale.
I can’t counter 60% of Brits by myself, but I do my part.
I’m off to burn another log in the wood stove. Cheers!
Met Office doesn’t want to know what people think; they are telling them what to think.
Professor Jason Lowe OBE, of the Met Office, said: “Everyone can see that we’re experiencing frequent extreme weather, and an increasing number of these damaging events can be shown to have been influenced by human-induced climate change. said: “Everyone can see that we’re experiencing frequent extreme weather, and an increasing number of these damaging events can be shown to have been influenced by human-induced climate change.
May I suggest that he read more about Meteorology. “Climate, History and the Modern World” by H.H. Lamb would do admirably. Mr Lowe would find out that the world has withstood real climate disasters frequently over the last 2000 years. They Have included the destruction of various regions of farming with consequent famines, the creation of deserts where forests once stood, flooding of inhabited lands, death or relocation of fish stocks and the collapse of fishing industries and icing or de-icing of polar regions. Mr Lamb provides detailed evidence for each of these events. In none of the is the greenhouse effect, let alone the tiny part played by anthropogenic CO2, suggested as a significant cause.
As to Professor Lowe’s “Everyone can see … I am an “Everyone”, and to be able the case of any meteorological scares, I would need evidence.
Evidence, indeed.
‘an increasing number of these damaging events can be shown to have been influenced by human-induced climate change’
Show us ONE!
‘Increasing number’ is climateologist speak. It infers without actually documenting. A begging the question fallacy.
These events are like bumps on the head to a phrenologist.
Or he’s been to a retro phrenologist who’s given him new bumps with a toffee hammer so as to see the future.
“Jason Lowe – UK Centre for Greening Finance and Investment (CGFI)” https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/2021/07/jason-lowe/
He recently led the UKCP18 project, which developed innovative new climate scenarios for the UK, and is now being used extensively in the latest UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. Internationally, Jason has contributed to all three working groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many UN climate reports.
Hardly surprising of they only ask climate and green control freaks/fanatics while ignoring the vast majority of the population
Although the world is already committed to a level of global warming due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, action taken now to reduce our carbon footprint will help prevent the most dangerous impacts from climate change in the future.
Standard warmist assertion with no evidence offered.
A warmer, greener world without glaciation is dangerous how?
And warmists lie.
Anyone else noticed how the entire focus of the climate activists (inc the Met office) is now on ‘extreme weather events’. As the temps stubbornly refuse to rise to order they’ve had to change direction and now ambulance chase every storm around the world. ‘Small shower over Taunton’ will be next. My brolly is by the door…
Very true, but how are extreme events increasing if temperatures are not? The Alarmists picked 30 years for their averages some time ago, probably because that showed good upward trends, but now that we’ve had 25 years since the big El Nino increase, that’s looking increasingly like a problem. Without some more warming, the numbers are going to look dubious quite soon. Better pray for another big El Nino!
Looking at a chart from the ENSO page on wuwt , it looks as if your prayers are about to be answered
One of the forecast models is of a SST anomaly of 1.5C . If correct , and the latest figures suggest it might be , that would be significant (IMO as a layperson).
“The Alarmists picked 30 years for their averages…”
No, the 30 years-period was chosen by Physical Geographers a long time ago, before anyone cared about global anything; it was because climatologists thought there were definite regional cycles of weather, of period less than 10 years, which they wanted to suppress.
Of course, the habit of comparing, say, this year to the average of
1991 to 2022 misses the point. The latter was always meant to be the smoothed number for 2005. We will not have the smoothed number for 2023 for another 15 years. Only then we will be able to compare 2023 to 2005.
Ah, but we have to remember that the Met Office was recently granted Category 2 Responder status. They are a trusted partner of the government and, naturally, of the media who depend on them for forecasts. As usual, however, whoever it was who granted them this status has not been named. Why is it that politicians have an unerring knack of placing (OUR!) trust (and money) in people and organisations that we ourselves would not?
Not sure if people with hyphens are capable of being polite according to a poll.
Says person not being polite.
Good one.
There is nothing wrong with a little order in society.
In respect of the drought risk after a dry Feb.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/03/18/drought-risk-to-england-regions-after-slightly-dry-february-scientists-warn/
Nearly everywhere has already had a very wet March!
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge/CURR.html
What will the polls say after the blackouts start from unreliable windfarms and lack of power from the interconnectors?
The Met Office is just another arm of government & so follows government policies.
“What business is it of the Met Office?”
Well, first, what IS the Meteorological Office? It is, according to the Meteorological Fund Trading Order, 1996,
“…the operations of the Ministry of Defence known as the Meteorological Office.”
In other words, legally, a bunch of “Yes, Sir” men.
The legal definition of its ‘business’ is also in the Order:
SCHEDULE 1
FUNDED OPERATIONS
The operations of the Meteorological Office to be funded by the fund are:-
(a) the provision of meteorological, climatological and associated services
to the Ministry of Defence;
(b) the provision of such services to other customers; and
(c) operations incidental to, conducive or otherwise ancillary to the foregoing.
Obviously, this was meant to be extremely restrictive with (c) a kind of saving grace to pay for a staff, field-observers, offices, outside consultants, etc.
Unfortunately, the unspoken assumption in all this, that decent boffins would never go rogue, was naive in the extreme. A ‘service to a customer’ should have been ‘a legitimate and morally-sound service to a customer;’ instead it is now used as an excuse to do anything that that customer (principally the Civil Service) WANTS done. Set up Black Propaganda? Done! Scare the bejeebus out of people? Done! The reward? A new billion-pound computer toy? Done says the Government!
It is no longer part of the MoD but now part of BEIS – or whatever that is now.
“…now part of BEIS…”
Of course; that is why the Funding Order was required in the first place.
But the functions were not changed and the institutional biases were not changed. Just a meaningless reorganization, really.
“Reorganization!” One of the half-dozen ways in which rotten old businesses pretend to reinvent themselves. Others being “Shake-up!” “Crack-down!” “New broom!” “Official inquiry!” “Scapegoat someone!” “Give us more money!”
And ultimately, “Thatcher/Trump/Brexit/Climate Change/White Men…Thatcher/Trump/Brexit/Climate/White Men…! Thatcher..”
I am on yougov and don’t immediately recall taking part in a survey like this. They don’t give you the ability to see what surveys you have completed. Suffice to say that I would have said it was all a load of bollocks. Probably even lied a bit as any measures I take to reduce energy consumption are due to the increased cost due to unreliable energy subsidies and not to save bloody polar bears.
By the way I received an email from Shell Energy today with the new rates come April. The kWh charge is reducing by 3.5% but to offset that the standing charge is going up yet again and by 10.6%!!!!
Gallup recently conducted a poll which asked if there was too much ignorance and too much apathy.
The majority of respondents said they didn’t know, and they didn’t care.