This is an interesting survey that cuts across a number of lines and held beliefs. I believe it to be worthwhile to participate in this survey. – Anthony
Guest post by Tom Fuller
If you are tired of having everybody trying to tell you what you think, and especially if what you think isn’t what’s being reported, I heartily encourage you to take this survey. I will be doing the analysis for free and for fun over the next few weeks, and I hope that we will be able to break new ground on the debate over global warming.
Thank you for participating in Examiner.com’s First Annual Survey on Global Warming. The introduction is below. Have fun!
First, let’s start with the ground rules. Your participation is completely anonymous, and no attempt will be made to contact you for any reason as a result of your participation or anything you write in this survey.
Second, this survey is not intended to be used as an opinion poll or a census, and will not be used as such. We are not trying to find out how many people ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ in global warming. Our purpose is to try and find out if there are areas of agreement on possible policy initiatives going forward.
Click here to get started. Examiner.com’s First Annual Survey on Global Warming.
I believe It is worthwhile to participate in.
___________________________________________________
You may possibly wish to reword this phrase for grammar? 😉
(You rock, Mr. Watts)
I took the survey and I felt as if it was prepared by a poly science major. The options or choices seemed to be written with the idea that solutions were only a matter of making a decision and driving down the road, how naive. The underlying idea was almost Malthusian, limited resources with all the thoughts already processed. AGW is real, eat less meat, forget about innovation look where it go us. Science and engineering are political studies. Or who cares. Every open text box I input ideas. It will be interesting to see what comes of the ‘information’ gained.
Took the survey. It would have been nice to add some survey logic so that people from countries other than the US could respond with relevant answers.
For a non US citizen it is quite difficult to deal with: although it welcomes outsiders, it concentrates on US politics.
On which I cannot properly comment.
It is also heavily biased towards the idea thatAGW exists and that it is due to human activity.
Do not get me wrong, I do not think it is a piece of propaganda as such, it is just that it assumes, like Fuller himself, that there is a problem, and whilst it allows for those who think NOT it really only tries to find out what people think about imaginary solutions to non existent problems without first asking the people whether there is a problem.
Still an interesting idea, lets see what comes out of it.
Kindest Regards
there Should be only one question…….Education is the answer to the whole thing.
With proper and honest education ..we have no anthropogenic GW CC GC or whatever else is coming our way.
Where’s the “Don’t spend public money on any of these projects” option?
I participated(should be a question on nationality).My question to ask was
Do you believe earth is warming dangerously.
I took the survey. I believe it is biased. The survey assumes that there actually is something that government can do about a problem that is not theirs to handle.
It also assumes that throwing money at problems is a good idea… It seems like Americans have figured out that any money we throw Washington way is wasted… and stolen… Let each of us adapt to any changes that happen., that’s what people have always done. It’s time to get the fence built… around Washington D. C. Then we can start interviewing a few people and give the most honest some short term work to do for us.
I can’t see what good a survey is if it doesn’t have as a choice for the government to stop picking winners and losers…
Why so much for windmills and so little for nuclear?
Everything coming from washington stinks to high heaven
Mike Bryant
a jones (21:56:43) : You wrote:
“It is also heavily biased towards the idea thatAGW exists and that it is due to human activity.”
That is 100% on target. As I disagree I had to force myself to finish all the questions in a reasoned manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the end, for the question and answer part, I put:
Q: Do you personally know of any changes in your environment you can attribute to global warming? (Not something you have read about.)
A: No, I’ve not noticed anything.
I agree that Tom’s survey is full of assumptions regarding the veracity of AGW, but he does give those taking the poll the option of providing their own answers under the “other” category. I used it with abandon in the parts about where my taxes should go and what policies the gov’t should pursue.
I did the survey and my question was: “Do you believe that CO2 causes a) global warming or b) climate change?”
A very biased survey that doesn’t leave any countable, serious options for those opposed to the global warming hysteria.
I guess a majority of respondents will have to resort to “Other” free-text fields, and their opinions are going to be suppressed when this survey’s results will be published.
QED?
A survey about energy choices which makes no mention at all of nuclear is not much use is it…but he will certainly find out which blogs are popular.
I didn’t like it.
I felt that by trying to manipulate our basic instinct to prefer a healthy environment at the expense of asking the key questions concerning whether or not CO2 cleansing was even an environmental question worth asking it invited false conclusions.
At the end where it asks for the question which should have been asked I put, “Is CO2 pollution?”.
TerryBixler (21:34:59) :
I took the survey and I felt as if it was prepared by a poly science major.
I am a poli sci major and I felt as if it was prepared by a journalist, lol. Many poorly written questions. Too many leading questions. Too many questions had built in assumptions. And as a poli sci guy, I would have to say it was not written by someone that understands the role of the Federal Government as laid out by the Framers.
For the last two questions, I put:
“Do you worry that intervention policies (such as seeding the ocean, etc) might do more to harm the environment? (the Cane Toad effect)
Well heck yes, that’s even more worrying than some of the goofy, expensive, useless money-burning plans for ‘green’ energy. Seed the oceans with iron? Throw stuff up in the air? Trigger volcanic eruptions? Whatever they think they can do to block/reverse warming will send so many unknown ripples through the delicate balances of the enviroment.
Oh, and with the question about what Obama should spend 60% of his time on, what about “keep his freakin hands off of healthcare, the economy, and a bunch of other policies that would be better off without government intervention.
Good grief — what a crock! I used the write-in to say that diversification (windmills, solar, etc.) was a boondoggle. I’m sure I’ll be classified in the crackpot category. To insure this, I also wrote in that currently there was only one place I’d be interested in spending as much as a dime in extra tax, and that would be for increased funding for the late Dr. Bussard’s work. (From what I can tell the latest test was successful.)
Any survey not including nuclear energy as a viable option is politically tainted bovine excrement, IMHO.
Rather than think we are crackpots for using the “other” text boxes, I suspect Tom will learn something important about what questions to ask and how to frame those he does. If he doesn’t, then I must I have read him wrong in his columns.
I had a lot of fun with the “other” category. I just let the insults fly. Very therapeutic.
my question was “what country are you from” It was very US centric.
Did it as well, agree with others about the assumptions in the survey presuming AGW is an issue that is a problem.
My question was: Do you believe that the temperature ‘hockey stick graph’ developed by Michael Mann and promoted by Al Gore is representative of the Earth’s past climate?
http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d21-Official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent
Please tell me this, from the same publication, is a wild and crazy parody. It is, isn’t it? I mean otherwise, to ask anyone to take anything in this publication seriously, you would have to have at least one oar out of the water…
I read here about once a month and will admit most of this is at first glance over my head. I took the survey and something I have not seen before was in there and if anyone can help I would greatly appreciate it. The subject I have never seen before was called geoengineering with putting algae and sulfurs and so on into the oceans. Correct me if I am wrong but could these measures create more harm than good? I apologize for the length of this comment.
What a one-sided, global warming believer, weighted survey! It was completely biased and assumed a belief in the global warming hogwash. It didn’t allow option that didn’t support the AGW viewpoint. One good thing, though, was that there were some places where you could really explain your points about the issue.
Had a look at the survey and disappointed that it seem to assume (1) global warming is the coming problem and (2) failed to recognise that global cooling is likely to be the issue for the next few decades.
Before you can prepare for either 1 or 2 above you have to have accurate climate forecasts on a 50 year horizon. To-day science struggles to predict weather just five days ahead.