Or to give this discussion it's real title - why can’t those who say they support the consensus understand cutting CO2?

Cutting CO2 is not complicated, it really isn’t. Have less, do less, use less. Simples. So why don’t warmists do it? Why do they eternally pin their hopes on a magic solution? One presumably that only materialises if we all click our heels together and shout ‘WE BELIEVE!’ Why do they even lie to themselves that cutting CO2 would be anything but highly unpleasant and that is the reason nobody is jumping forward to volunteer? It’s a huge reason to be sceptical of AGW. If you have to go to hell, you’d better be damned sure it’s necessary.

I think I know why they cling to renewables, despite the mounting evidence that they won’t save the day. The warmists were brought up on Disney movies where the hero was a scientist with the secret to unlimited energy from tap water and nasty oil company employees had been sent to destroy the formula. They’re convinced the solution to fossil fuels is being suppressed by oil money. This is rubbish of course. If there was a wonder fuel out there, someone would be making a mint selling it to us. The magic energy sources ARE fossil fuels. Expecting a second miracle would seem to be greedy if not delusional.

The next level of warmist madness is the idea that it’s somebody else emitting the CO2. Big Business is the usual suspect and while it’s true that business uses a lot of energy, there aren’t infinite energy savings to be made. Successful businesses already try to minimise energy waste but they are constrained by cost, technological solution and a fundamental amount of energy that has to be used.

A warmist might say ‘if we tax fossil fuels hard, then we make it worth while for businesses to reduce energy and invest in new forms of energy or energy saving.’ Partly true but only so far. If it’s cheaper to move abroad they do so. So tax imports? Sure, we could try that but then you get international pissing contests. We’ll tax your goods if you tax ours. Our manufacturers end up paying twice and imports are still cheaper. Europe has tried to make a stand on air taxes (and even I could agree to those) and has been stumped by everyone, including the American Democrats who deemed the tax un-American and the Chinese ‘who take AGW seriously and are spending more money on renewables than the West, blah, blah’. Where are all these people who believe AGW is a problem and want to act?

It turns out that believers in AGW only believe in other people cutting CO2. They think their own modest energy emissions are justifiable. Dr Chris Turney is a good example with his cruise to the Arctic. Even had it gone without mishap, there was almost zero justification for it in a world where excess CO2 is dangerous. If you put it to your average Brit, which is more important use of energy – your wide screen TV for a year or some pointless research on the survival of penguins, threatened because of TOO MUCH ice. Even Turney might have ticked the TV box. And what did the British journalists think they’d achieve with their trip that equalled a year and half of the average British CO2 footprint each? Yep, CO2 for them but not for you. The poor sod who set up the Guardian trust will be spinning in his grave at the creation of a two speed state where a band of middle and upper classes can tell everyone else to embrace poverty while they enjoy all the fruits of a modern world. Champagne Communists, the lot of them.

Consensus supporters are very keen on the idea that Western countries take the lead on cutting CO2 – show them Johnny Foreigners how it’s done. The non Westerners are also keen for us to commit economic suicide and swear they’ll join us… sometime. Weirdly, while warmists support unilateral action by the UK or the US, they don’t espouse unilateral action for themselves. They’re not going to miss out on 21st century goodies on their own, we all have to suffer with them.

Even when advocating cutting CO2, the supporters of the consensus demonstrate their unfamiliarity with cutting CO2. Many of their suggestions would result in tiny energy savings. They cling to the ‘every little helps’ mantra despite good evidence that the not so little efforts we’ve made so far have had zero effect. If it takes that much money and effort to get nowhere, how much would it take to actually start cutting CO2? Perhaps because they’ve never bothered to work out their own CO2 footprint, they don’t know what works and what doesn’t? Certainly they seem keen to defend flying because apparently it only amounts to 1% of global emissions. Ha, ha.

Cutting CO2 is not the only disconnect between warmist action and belief. Whenever intellectual property rights are brought up or they fight the right to academic privacy I think ‘What? Your personal gain and modesty are more important than saving the planet?’

Probably the most telling evidence for warmist ignorance on cutting CO2 is their arrogance. Their demeanour indicates they haven’t the foggiest idea of what they’re asking for. First off, they don’t want the responsibility for the things done in the name of the science. ‘We just advise’ they offer coyly. No, if you shout ‘bomb’ in a crowded space, you’re responsible for what people do. However the actions of the scientists amount to writing a letter saying the will be a bomb of unknown size sometime in the future and by the time we can see the device it will be too late and everyone will die… probably. Naturally, people ask for more details at which the warmists get cross. They do a good impression of Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men.

Dr. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to.

Dr. Jessep: *You want answers?*

Kaffee: *I want the truth!*

Dr. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*

[pauses]

Dr. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be insulated. Who's gonna do it? You? You, denier Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Fossil Fuels, and you curse the scientists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That CO2 reduction, while near impossible, will probably save lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, may save lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that government committee, you need me on that committee. We use words like proxy, code, model. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent poorly defining something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very CO2 that I condemn, and then questions the manner in which I condemn it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a paper, and stand peer review. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Kaffee: Did you order the Code to show CO2 warming?

Dr. Jessep: I did the job I...

Kaffee: *Did you order the Code to show CO2 warming?*

Dr. Jessep: *You're Goddamn right I did!*

Ok, that’s just for fun but you know the kind of snotty response questions get from warmists. Not an ounce of humility or awareness of what they ask for.

So are warmists in (dare I say it) denial of their own need to act? Are they unaware of how to act? Do they think they're too important to act? Or are they just dumb as rocks and shouldn’t be listened to in any circumstances?

This subject seems to be your favourite hobby horse, so much so that you feel it necessary to invent various straw-men to attack. I don't see the reason for doing that when talking with your friends here. Are you after a discussion or chorus of the me-tooers echoing your preoccupation?

And in saying:

> It’s a huge reason to be sceptical of AGW.

when complaining of a perceived lack of commitment by warmists you betray what many of those who call you deniers assume - that the basis of your "scepticism" of AGW is not scientific but political. That is clear to anyone who notices "sceptics" inability to separate their opposition to the idea of AGW from their unfailing devotion to fossil fuels or from their opposition to greenery in general. Show me a "sceptic" who can admit to the negative aspects of fossil fuels and believes in phasing out those fuels as soon as possible and I will be infinitely more likely to believe he or she is truly sceptical.

Cutting CO2 emissions is a long job, like turning round a supertanker. It must be done with the consent of the public (consent which you and your friends are intent on making as difficult to obtain as possible, for whatever reason) in a socially equitable way. Unlike you, I don't think that is easy. We certainly can't achieve it in just a few years, although I doubt anyone is calling for that. What is needed are changes in incentives throughout our economies that encourage emission reduction. There are various ways of doing this but they all involve increasing the price of emitting CO2.

One approach that appeals to me is changing the tax system so that we tax the things we don't want (carbon emissions, pollution, waste) and not those we do (employment, saving, investment). Sensible as this might seem (to me) it is unlikely that governments are going to pass up taxing employment when it is such an easy target. Another approach I like is a tax and flat rate dividend (from which the poor benefit disproportionately). But there are doubtless many other ways that can be tried. We need to start trying.

You aren't familiar with human nature are you? You're not even very observant of the way people are acting, let alone extrapolating that behaviour into the future. It's not just sceptics who have unfailing devotion to fossil fuels, it's everyone up to and including most believers. At the rate the ship is turning I'll be dead of old age before we're even half way. Sceptics have almost nothing to do with the way the public are acting. They ignore AGW all on their own. You're lying to yourself if you think any differently. I suppose it's easier to believe nasty old sceptics are the problem rather than admit the message is lame.

You might like the idea of setting up taxation but the public don't like it. They don't like paying the energy bills now. The public vote out those who inflict taxes like that. Australia is a case in point.

'We need to start trying'. No, YOU need to start trying. Where are the calls for renewables only tarifs? Where are the queues of eager green people with their love of over priced electricity? Where are the posts on warmist web sites about cutting CO2?

I repeat, cutting CO2 is easy, you just don't want to do it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/highest-gas-prices-countries

Consider this page on fuel price, amount used and percentage of income spent. How big must tax be to significantly change useage? The UK already has a 59% tax burden on diesel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571988/Fuel-tax-burden-UK-worst-Europe-triggering-calls-Osborne-cut-duty-3p-Budget.html

TinyCO2:

> It's not just sceptics who have unfailing devotion to fossil
fuels, it's everyone up to and including most believers.

Untrue. Normal people are not preoccupied by the nature of the fuel but the use to which they put that fuel. Sceptics on the other hand seem determined that only fossil fuels be used.

> Sceptics have almost nothing to do with the way the public are acting.

Then why do the Bishop, Lawson, Watts and many others put so much effort into opposing any action on AGW if the public is there before them? That makes no sense.

> You might like the idea of setting up taxation but the
public don't like it. They don't like paying the energy
bills now. The public vote out those who inflict taxes like
that. Australia is a case in point.

I'm not talking of inflicting new taxes, as you know, but of changing incentives by altering the balance of taxation from taxing the desirable (work) to taxing the undesirable (pollution). That this is beneficial is beyond debate (AGW or not), although whether it is practicable is clearly not. Or my alternative was a revenue neutral tax that alters incentives and benefs the poor.

> YOU need to start trying.

You'll find that many people already buy from renewable electricity suppliers (eg Good Energy), buy offsets when flying, walk or cycle instead of driving, etc but I guess that is not good enough for you.

> I repeat, cutting CO2 is easy, you just don't want to do it.

To anyone living in the real world it is not.

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?pbid=d92e9553-3ffd-4887-811b-60b0aa22fcea

An excellent example of the lack of commitment to cutting CO2 is this pullout from The East Anglian Daily Times which admirably included an article by Paul Homewood. It was the only one bringing something fresh and detailed to the table. The only two tools the warmists have left is the 'scientists agree' chestnut and adverse weather events 'are consistent with climate change'.

Come on warmists, is this the best you've got?

Sceptics don’t care where energy comes from so long as it isn’t much more expensive than that used by other countries and it is both copious and reliable. Renewables fail each of those tests. Coal does not. Only nuclear offers a CO2 free alternative and it’s not sceptics who are a barrier to its deployment. However it does have its own issues, not least the cost of building them. As yet there are few useful alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation. The best way to save travel energy is not to travel. Something warmists eschew. Seriously, I’ve attended many more online conferences for fields other than the one that should be leading the way, climate.

Sceptics put the effort in because they can see a lot of time, money and emotion being wasted on AGW. We are currently neither reducing CO2 nor getting on with our lives. Lose, Lose. We really, really don’t care how much of your money you want to waste on this but we resent like hell, you wasting our money on your pet theory!

Moving taxation or ‘incentives’ about only has a limited effect. How do I know that? Because we are already doing it! What do you think subsidies for renewables are? Where do you think the money comes from, if not taxes on profitable things like fossil fuels? Unfortunately it is reaching the point where conventional power is unaffordable and suppliers are threatening to withdraw from the market. No fossil fuel taxes, no renewable subsidies, no electricity at all. We’re also reaching the point where renewables could destabilise the grid, something Europe is also grappling with so it’s not an issue unique to the UK. Power cuts would kill CO2 worries over night.

You want people to work but use significantly less energy? The only sure fire way to do that is to return to man power, literally. The very thing the Industrial Revolution took us away from.

Without the fuel taxes already paid by the conventional generators and thus the wider public, the power supplied by Good Energy would sky rocket, instead of being on a par with others in the market. Even with price parity, Good Energy is a drop in the ocean. They’ve got a fifth of 1% of the market share and have more customers sucking up subsidy than customers buying energy from them. We’re told more than 40% of the public believe in AGW. Yeah, right.

Offsets. Pulease! We can’t all have offsets, there aren’t enough energy savings in the world to offset what people want to do. What you advocate is rich people doing what they want and poor people never getting the opportunity. Taken to its conclusion, offsets would allow billionaires the right to buy up forests and fields and oceans and then claim the CO2 capacity of those spaces. What are the rest of us going to breathe? How much cycling will the three British journalists have to do to offset their flights to see Mawson’s hut? How many extra trees will they plant to offset the rescue operation?

The softly, softly approach to cutting CO2 is not working. The UK emissions are still going up. They are five times the per capita figure needed to park global emissions. Endlessly setting targets you cannot meet and creating teams to monitor how far we stray from those targets is just a waste of money.

When are warmists going to treat CO2 like a real problem?

> Sceptics don't care where energy comes from ...

That is good because more and more of it is going to come from solar. Anywhere sunny is going to see solar replace everything else. It is already, or will soon be, the best option in many places. The existing utilities can shout and scream and try to stand in the way, but it is happening and will continue. And this is largely due to the subsidies given to solar in the developed world that has incentivised development and production. Just like other energy sources received subsidies in the past.

Sunlight is the most reliable and copious energy source available, far more so that fossil fuels. We just need to harness it. We'll achieve that by doing it - and by incentivising companies and people to use and develop it. There's nothing like a competitive market (apart from a war) to drive technological development and such a market is driven by the prospect of profit - by incentives. The incentive will come from putting a price on emitting CO2 and making it clear that the price is only going to go up. In my opinion that needs to include embodied CO2 emissions from imports. Subsidies on windmills and solar are a roundabout and inferior way of achieving that.

TinyCO2, your posts have been excellent in recent days. Keep it up, it saves me time and energy.

Johanna, do you agree with TinyCO2 that the failure of people to curb CO2 emissions is "a huge reason to be sceptical of AGW". Isn't your scepticism supposed to be because you are all so scientifically literate, more so than climate scientists, that you see glaring faults in the science? A failure to cut emissions could at most make one sceptical of the current response to AGW, so if it drives scepticism to AGW itself then that scepticism is clearly political not scientific.

Evidence that sceptics cannot separate opposition to AGW from devotion to fossil fuels? Don't be naive, you can see it any time the subject of fossils comes up here. Or maybe you'll prove me wrong and admit without artifice that fossils do have large costs that are not accounted for in their price (pollution, health, wars, corruption, suppression etc) and that when properly accounted for these costs would change significantly the relative economics of fossils and renewables.

Evidence that sceptics oppose greenery? Again look in these pages for mention of greenery or green groups free of invective.

> Most sceptics accept the concept of AGW - it's CAGW that is the issue.

Really? That sounds like revisionism to me having realised that you have lost that argument. There's plenty here that claim to be sceptical of AGW - note that TinyCO2 said "It’s a huge reason to be sceptical of AGW", not CAGW.

> opposing impoverishing and inefficient boondoggles like
solar and wind

Watch and weep then, as your country adopts solar and wind despite anything Abbot and his friends can do. People want to and increasingly can generate their own power. Do you want to deny them that freedom? People on the right can be quite touchy about their freedoms. You wont stop them as solar gets ever cheaper.

> I really can't be bothered engaging further with someone
who is so utterly disconnected from reality, or
alternatively is just trolling.

Well there wasn't much point in asking questions then, was there?

Chandra, unlike the climate obsessed, most people have to keep their eye on a wide range of issues. It’s why climate rarely scores high on surveys of public worries. Jobs, the economy, fuel bills and health all come first. And not just with the public. While politicians will stare into the camera and promise that there’s nothing more important than CO2 reduction, when budget time or elections come around they forget the green wash and take care of the old issues. The Democrats have been no different from the Republicans in this regard, though they got lucky with fracking and can claim to have reduced CO2, while at the same time keeping the energy flowing cheaply.

Germans on the other hand have seen their emissions go up since they dropped some of their nuclear in favour of coal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html

True, they have a very impressive solar supply but it may cost them up to 1 trillion euros ($1.34 trillion) in the next two decades. This year German consumers will be forced to pay €20bn (£17bn) to subsidise electricity from solar, wind and bio-gas plants, power with a real market price of €3bn. Can you see those sunny, developing countries forking out that kind of cash?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-germany-energy-idUSBRE91J0AV20130220

Germany also has an unstable grid because solar, unlike wind, cannot be disconnected at will. Grids do not like too much energy, any more than they like too little. Germany’s neighbours are acting as their buffer zone but they are beginning to threaten disconnection to save their own, less robust, grids. It may mean Germany has to upgrade its neighbours to progress its green energy plans.

The subsidised price of renewables are also threatening the conventional power supplies. Those are the supplies that are needed to keep the energy flowing when solar and wind aren’t operating.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros

Yes, Germany may be able to sort out all the problems they’re creating but only Germany or somewhere like it can afford those levels of costs. How long their economy can keep paying for it is another matter and if the green experiment fails in Germany, it won't work anywhere.

Unlike Germany, the UK has never voted in a green government or even come close. Eventually the current politicians will remember that.

Incidentally, it matters little what sceptics or warmists think of fossil fuels, only how people act, but I'm forgetting that warmists prefer models to real world effects. In any other field you'd be classed as a fantasist.

Come on Chandra, you still haven't got to grips with the theme of the discussion. Why don't warmists understand cutting CO2? You say that cutting CO2 is difficult. WRONG. Giving up the lifestyle is difficult. Keeping the lifestyle with any of the renewable options we have, seems to be impossible.

You've proven my point about your side pinning its hopes on magic solutions. Solar. Hah, hah, hah! The fourth richest country by GDP is struggling to incorporate renewables and it's only at 23%. The more it adds the harder it will get. Oh and what is the German CO2 output per capita? More than the UK and over four times what would be needed to park global CO2 levels. So all that money, pain and effort to move from too much CO2 to too much CO2. I'm sure the World will appreciate the extra days of CAGW free time at the end of the century. Oh and that's covered by the 'every little helps' delusion.

One of the biggest impacts on CO2 recently, has been the recession. People had less, did less, used less. Simple but unpleasant. If you think that CAGW is possible you have to consider that drastic energy use reduction is the most effective way to bring down emissions. At that point, if you have any sense, you would look at the science again to see if it is accurate enough to justify that level of pain. Sceptics are just ahead of the crowd and we've found it wanting.

Johanna, I set you a simple challenge to admit without artifice that:

> ... fossils do have large costs that are not accounted for
in their price ... and that when properly accounted for
these costs would change significantly the relative
economics of fossils and renewables.

And you refuse to respond, instead flouncing off with a petulant, "Tiresome troll - stop pretending that you are an honest actor. Your disruptive and pointless posts will not get any further response from me.".

My statement is a no-brainer that anyone can see it to be true. Yet no one here is brave enough to confirm it. Maybe some of you agree with me but are loath to admit it, for fear of weakening future arguments against the hated renewables. But isn't that a bit intellectually embarrassing?

TinyCO2, be careful with misinformation being spread around by those opposed to the Energiewende. The policy is popular in Germany. Read that again. The policy is popular in German. And the German economy is the engine of Europe and shows no sign of collapsing under the weight of the policy. In part the popularity of the EW is it allows local communities to take control of their energy supply.

That is going to happen everywhere as PV prices fall (and fossil prices rise, or not) - you may be on the side of the utilities in not liking people taking control of their power generation (witness the monopoly providers in the US and Australia trying to prevent their customers from installing solar) but it is unstoppable.

Developing countries without a grid are in a position to develop distributed generation from scratch, skipping over the western model of power distribution for one suited to new technologies and saving on costs.

> Germany also has an unstable grid because solar...

Pull the other one, Germany's grid the most stable worldwide.

> Sceptics are just ahead of the crowd and we've found it wanting.

No, your preferred false authority or vested interest has played to your prejudices and convinced you that it is safer to stay with what you know and what makes them money, than to embrace the future. But the future is coming nevertheless, and the future is green :-)

As an Climate Change agnostic and a Scot, I try and save money, and as the cost of everything is dependent on the cost of energy to a greater or lesser degree then to save money one must save energy. But cost/benefit is also key in decision making. I only fitted curly fluorescent bulbs in one or two places the lifetime, expense v savings and mercury being key to that decision. I do use LED bulbs (GU10 mainly) as savings can be significant and life should be pretty good. The 8 LED GU10 units in the kitchen should have paid for themselves over winter and I am now actually saving money. I live in an old stone house, but have insulated it as much as I can. I drive a 14 year old Citroën Diesel Xantia, I don't particularly curtail distance or trips but do try and beat my mpg record on every trip. Despite my misgivings that it does anything useful I do all the recycling stuff. I have LPG central heating but rely on two woodburners as the main source of heat only using the LPG for cooking and some hot water and frost protection, some hot water is electrically heated.

Now I've met several sceptics who do the same sort of thing but very few of the true believers (the opposite of agnostic if you like) who do all I do. Even my warmist brother has done less than I have.

I'd be interested in any non-sceptic who has made an effort over and above what I've done posting how they did it on BH, in particular any that have given up reliance on the internal combustion engine for personal transport (cars,trains,boats and planes); heat and light their dwelling by renewable (excluding electricity) only. I don't think that organic self sufficiency is really an option for the human race so I'm quite happy for them to buy seasonal food: fruit, vegetables and meat at the local supermarket or Tesco Local.

Sandy, why the worry about mercury? Did you worry about lead in the days of leaded petrol? Do you worry about mercury from coal power stations (or even from burning coal in the grate perhaps?)? Do you worry about the chemicals leaching from plastic containers?

You are much more likely to come to harm from crossing the road or falling off a stool changing a bulb. Or from particulates from your diesel car and every day traffic.

Some things you missed are cycling, walking and public transport. And then there is compost, of course :-) But my favourite is planting trees.

Chandra,
Well as it happens I don't worry about things I can't change, so lead in petrol was outside my control. Whereas mercury in light bulbs was avoidable until an ecomentalist bureaucrat in Brussels decided otherwise.

Mercury from coal is not the only source of atmospheric mercury and as I lived in a house without electricity until my early 20s and my mother continued to live there until the late 1990s I regarded that as something I couldn't change and contributed less than average to. The choice between freezing and burning coal, wood or peat was straight forward. We planted a reasonable number (about 40 I think) of trees around that house, mainly rescued seedlings so again I think I'm ahead of the average on that score.

Why line the pockets of big business by paying them to plant trees, unless of course you own enough land to plant them yourself. I have to assume that at this stage you don't own a great deal of land.

Cycling involves the use of "carbon" in the manufacture of the cycle and so falls into the industrial output from evil carbon category..

From what you haven't said I assume that you haven't actually given up any of the benefits of the so called carbon economy for the pleasures of a minimum carbon economy.

Your objection to mercury must make you a strong supporter of emissions controls on coal fired power stations. Next time I bring up the pros and cons of fossil fuels I guess you will support me as far as mercury emissions are concerned.

Particulates must also come under your classification of things you can't change and so don't worry about. Except they are doubtless more harmful when considering our exposure levels than the small amount of mercury in CFLs and you might be able to avoid them by moving away from busy roads and by supporting heavy restrictions on vehicular emissions for the benefit of those who can't move. Next time I bring up the pros and cons of fossil fuels I expect you will support me as far as particulates are concerned.

> I lived in a house without electricity until my early 20s
and my mother continued to live there until the late 1990s

You had it easy! When I were a lad, we lived in a paper bag...

> Cycling involves the use of "carbon" in the manufacture of
the cycle and so falls into the industrial output from
evil carbon category..

Now you're getting silly.

> From what you haven't said I assume that you haven't
actually given up any of the benefits of the so called
carbon economy for the pleasures of a minimum carbon
economy.

You assume wrongly. And note that to 'give up' something you have to start it in the first place.

Chandra
Getting silly - true but then discussing things with you isn't exactly sensible.
Compared to people in the developing world I did and have had it easy, that's why I'm reluctant to give it up. Sarcasm on your part doesn't really sway my view and shows you to be an intellectually challenged vain and egotist know all with the mindset of a 12 year old; as was BB.

You still haven't answered the question which with you is par for the course. So really you've proved the point that you only troll here once again.

From your responses and their timings I guess that you are living in a wood somewhere in North America using only recyclable energy and living a vegan lifestyle.

I see no point in responding any further.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html

"People who say they are concerned about climate change use more electricity than those who say the issue is 'too far away to worry about', government-commissioned study finds."

Case proved?

Of course the response isn't to ask why the warmists act irrationally and conclude the proof of CAGW isn't that persuasive but -

"The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced. "

Correlation and causation. You should know the difference. Also it will depend a lot on the sample (small and probably not sufficiently representative or even). I haven't read the report beyond skimming the summary, where I found:

“Households that said the effects of climate change are too far into the future to worry them use less, rather than more, electricity. However, this was largely due to their age: older households (over 65) were much more likely to say climate change is too far off to worry them, and also had lower energy use."

Spoils your story a bit perhaps. Not worth the bother reading the rest I expect, people will spin it the way they want it.