The newspapers that print my articles have overall seen their circulations rise, so I would say yes.
The other factor is that people in the UK are beginning to wake up to the fact that we are about to destroy, not too strong a word, our industry in the name of Global Warming mitigation.
They are now becoming cognizant that the UK produces a very small amount of greenhouse gases, and even if we stopped all production today it really wouldn't make an iota of difference to the total. not when the larger producers are still belching out billions of tons of CO2.
The increase in the price of electricity is also a factor, as is the admission of central government that we will be suffering blackouts in two years time, all because we have shut down traditional power stations and tried to rely on the useless wind turbines and the almost useless solar panels.
One big confidence trick, one has to wonder what sinister organisation or belief is behind it all.
My bet is International Socialism.
Before anyone snorts in derision, remember all the trade union leaders "outed" as Communists?
The ideology hasn't gone away, it lives on using the quite natural desire of folk to do something too help the environment.
The main "con" that exists is that otherwise intelligent people (being generous) actually look to websites like wattsupwiththat for information. Complaining about skepticalscience and then reading wattupwiththat is hypocritical and stupid. I know you live in some back woods village where you have no access to books, but seem to have a high-speed internet connection, but you really need to find better sources of information.
If you don't, you'll end up like Sagebrush, Maxx and Greta, thinking that you know something about science despite never having learned a lick of it since what was taught in vacation Bible school--and of course that wasn't science either.
I think you at least have the potential to learn something, they're completely beyond redemption.
EDIT: Don't go to blogs at all then. You'll get a much higher caliber of site if you go to .edu or .gov sites. Those are the sites I'm talking about--not even skepticalscience. You can also find notes for many university classes online. MIT makes that available for every class they offer, and many other schools do too.
Most climate science can be understood by a thorough grounding in undergraduate physics and chemistry, so learn that stuff first. If things like "Stefan's Law" and the "Clausius-Clapeyron Relation" are unfamiliar to you, THAT'S where you need to start--not by reading some garbage blog.
The idea that things that were "not pro AGW" would not get published is garbage. For many journals, MOST papers do not get published, regardless of their subject. Getting published requires some persistence and willing to listen to criticism from others. If you do that and don't make glaring scientific errors, you can get published. I have had papers published that were MUCH more controversial than anything to do with AGW.
The press in the UK are pretty much a law unto themselves and print almost anything they want. In the last couple of years there has been massive public outrage at the conduct of the press which has led to many criminal convictions and the shutting down of the UK’s biggest selling newspaper. News International has been particularly hard hit with some of it’s most senior staff having been arrested and charged.
The Daily Mail (the paper that printed the article in question) has been scathingly attacked from all sides. It is the butt of constant jokes in the UK due to it’s obsession that just about everything is caused by illegal immigrants. The Mail, along with some other publications, used to command a certain level of respect in the UK but recent criminal activities, convictions, investigations and enquiries have severely damaged that reputation.
The Mail firmly targets itself at ‘Little England’ (described, amongst other things, as people who are xenophobic, nationalistic, ignorant, boorish and opposed to globalism). It’s probably not the best publication to reference if you want to maintain credibility.
The actor Steve Coogan can put it much better than I can. In providing testimony to a recent judicial inquiry he said of the paper and it’s editor using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Partridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom.". This is a view that appears to be widely shared amongst the British Public.
As for your specific question, the Press Complaints Committee ruled that the Editor’s Code of Conduct had not been breached, this does not mean that the editorial content was accurate. Indeed, if you read the full statement from the PCC it explains in more detail why it came to the decision it did.
It seems rather odd that you try to link a ruling by the PCC to your inference that the “UK [is] finally realizing the truth about the climate change con”.
Trevor seems to embrace globalism, so I just wanted to state for the record that I am also 'opposed to globalism.'
Globalism: A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globali...
We should not forget that the last person to make a serious play toward globalism was Hitler. And what exactly could be more xenophobic, nationalistic, ignorant and boorish than Nazism?
But in direct answer to your question, yes, not only the UK but the world is finally waking up to the monstrous SCAM perpetrated upon us by the man-made Global Warming con-artists.
Here we have Mongolian neo-Nazis that have just recently decided to rebrand themselves as environmentalists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul...
No policy changes for this group I'm sure, just a name change to deceive those that don't realize Communism, Nazism, Socialism, Fascism, Environmentalism are all pretty much the same thing. Their ultimate goals are no property rights, no freedom, little or no free market --- they are all totalitarian in nature. For the most part, its only the uniforms that change with these people.
But the Warmists are not ONLY being exposed by the fact it's not warming, and by all their failed predictions --- but their political roots are being exposed as well. The Mongolian neo-Nazis decision above stands as testament to that.
-----------------------
the truth according to Watts? really..
there are two sides, just like there is two sides to a flat earth or two sides about negative gravity.
get some real education, work at a university degree in atmospheric sciences or physics.
It is ignorant and deceitful deniers versus real science as always. There is nobody who studies climate who denies climate change. Notice that it is never credible people making these anti-science denier rants, only political operatives.
http://www.rtcc.org/uk-climate-panel-shr...
David Rose we recall is the guy who made up the story of an Iraq - Al Qaida connection. There are dead British and American soldiers because of David Rose.
http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols....
He makes things up regardless of truth and regardless of the results. That just the kind of person he is. We can tell who share his integrity, who else just makes things up for their politics.
Every family who lost a soldier's life due to Rose' lies know that he and everyone around him is evil.
I don't use known liars like Rose as news. Anthony Watts does. Other people here do. That is just the kind of people they are.
Only if they are all as gullible and stupid as you
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/02/uk-press-commission-rules-on-the-great-green-con/
