Take Examiner.com's First Annual Survey on Global Warming

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 31, 2009 9:24 pm

I believe It is worthwhile to participate in.
You may possibly wish to reword this phrase for grammar? 😉
(You rock, Mr. Watts)

October 31, 2009 9:34 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 9:53 pm

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.

a jones
October 31, 2009 9:56 pm

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

wilbert robichaud
October 31, 2009 9:58 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 10:04 pm

Where’s the “Don’t spend public money on any of these projects” option?

October 31, 2009 10:12 pm

I participated(should be a question on nationality).My question to ask was
Do you believe earth is warming dangerously.

Mike Bryant
October 31, 2009 10:15 pm

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

John F. Hultquist
October 31, 2009 10:21 pm

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.

Doug in Seattle
October 31, 2009 10:29 pm

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.

Jimmy Haigh
October 31, 2009 10:39 pm

I did the survey and my question was: “Do you believe that CO2 causes a) global warming or b) climate change?”

October 31, 2009 10:50 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 10:55 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 10:56 pm

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?”.

October 31, 2009 10:58 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 10:58 pm

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.

G.L. Alston
October 31, 2009 11:06 pm

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.

Doug in Seattle
October 31, 2009 11:22 pm

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.

October 31, 2009 11:37 pm

I had a lot of fun with the “other” category. I just let the insults fly. Very therapeutic.

October 31, 2009 11:37 pm

my question was “what country are you from” It was very US centric.

October 31, 2009 11:45 pm

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?

November 1, 2009 12:03 am

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…

November 1, 2009 12:06 am

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.

November 1, 2009 12:22 am

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.

November 1, 2009 12:43 am

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.

November 1, 2009 12:43 am

Hi all,
Thanks to those who have participated so far–sorry I wasn’t more accommodating to those outside the countries. For those who have made blanket assumptions about my beliefs and biases going into the survey, I hope my analysis will prove otherwise and show that it wasn’t a waste of your time taking the survey.

J. Peden
November 1, 2009 1:00 am

I want to truely thank Tom for providing areas for comment.
But I wasn’t even going to spend an extra $125 in taxes for unfettering Nuclear Energy Plant construction [“other”], since that shouldn’t cost extra. And anyway, what’s $125 going to do that the extra $10-15 trillion expenditure/debt, plus the other $20 trillion non-debt, by 2019 can’t do?
We should have been able to purchase a whole new Planet.

Philip T. Downman
November 1, 2009 1:10 am

The survey is biassed to: “The World” means the USA and the climate is decided by President Obama.
It omits the alternatives: Our climate might be depending on the Sun, where none cares about our opinions

November 1, 2009 1:11 am
November 1, 2009 1:11 am

My question was do you think AGW is a smooke screen for the new world order?.

November 1, 2009 1:13 am


Mike McMillan
November 1, 2009 1:44 am

My question was “who was the last President to raise taxes during a recession?” And the answer, so far, is Herbert Hoover. That will change.

Roger Knights
November 1, 2009 1:47 am

This survey should have been submitted here (or somewhere) for suggestions prior to posting.

November 1, 2009 1:51 am

Sure, it was naive, warmist and US-centric. But I did it. And would I have designed a poll any better? Not sure. I used the chance to say (a) with what I wanted to do, “educate people that CO2 is beneficial” and (b) with the question not asked, I suggested a multiple-choice question around the issue of the fairness or level of debate allowed – and said that even with recent loosening, folk still have no idea of the suppression that has been going on. Could probably have worded that one better but at 2am was falling asleep over the keyboard. Duh! But hopefully I’ve slipped in a couple of notions he might ruminate on.
Do go and reinforce that.

Roger Knights
November 1, 2009 2:00 am

I’ve just taken it. It’s not that bad. I don’t think it’s biased.

November 1, 2009 2:16 am

Really poor survey.

November 1, 2009 2:21 am

The 95 Questions
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. A simple call for debate became the spark that ignited the Reformation. Although both Luther and the door are long gone, you can stand before the replica door, with all 95 Theses inscribed in bronze and think about how one man, standing up for truth, could change the world forever.
As global warming has become the new religion, I propose, in the tradition of the religious dissent of Martin Luther, a list of 95 questions to the worshipers of Global Warming. These are the questions they never answer, preferring instead to bluff, bluster, dodge, ignore the question, lie, quote others with similar views to themselves and refer constantly to a seemingly-invisible “scientific consensus” that supports their doctrine.
Anyone can add a question to the list, out of which 95 will be selected as the best questions to be sent to as many media outlets as possible, and will be put to Global Warming worshippers hopefully whenever they appear on any public platform, such as TV interviews.
To get started, here are some questions I would like answered:
1. Why was the hottest year globally of the 20th century 1934 and not 1999?
2. Why is the global temperature not increasing with the increasing amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere?
3. Why hasn’t the Arctic melted, as predicted every year for the last 15 years?
4. Why are the polar ice caps growing when, according to your doctrine, they should both be melting?
5. Why are the seas cooling when you insist they should be warming?
6. Why are sea levels falling (in places) when, according to your doctrine, they should all be rising to catastrophic levels?
…add your own questions here…

November 1, 2009 2:35 am

Plenty of room in that survey to respond outside of the box.
And I did just that.
Phoenix (00:06:58) :
GeoEngineering is a Pandorra’s Box that makes Nuclear Weapons look like playthings.
To be feared above all else, and avoided like the plague.
I prefer to call it what it is: Intentional Climate Alteration.
Do Not Open.
Let me give you the gist of what will happen:
If you attempt to force the climate to 2 degrees colder for 2 years, Nature will ultimately respond by removing the 2 degrees in a fourth of the time with a blast of heat far exceeding the cooling you enjoyed. It’s like firing a machine gun in an armor plated room. A fools errand. The bullets will eventually be spent, but you will perish long before that happens.
Witness the thunderclap. It’s what happens when a void is created and failed to be maintained. It is filled violently.
Alteration schemes to the climate will suffer the same fate, though the violent reaction in climate will not happen immediately, it will nonetheless eventully seek to regain it’s equilbrium with brute force.

Christopher Bowring
November 1, 2009 2:51 am

I am a British subject. I was filling in the survey, but realised it was written for American subjects. So I abandoned the survey. I would complete the survey as best I can if you would indicate if you want non-Americans to contribute.

UK Sceptic
November 1, 2009 3:00 am

I came out of that with my sceptic credentials intact but for some reason I’ve got an urge to go throw myself in the shower and wash off the AGW taint.

November 1, 2009 3:20 am

I concur withe comments above. Poorly constructed and written survey, by someone who clearly has a poor grasp of the issues and doesn’t seem to even understand the difference between Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Justin Ert
November 1, 2009 3:33 am

“Our purpose is to try and find out if there are areas of agreement on possible policy initiatives going forward.”
Many would say if Fuller is talking policy, then it must be political. If its political, there will be an agenda.
However, who on earth thinks that a poll in the the Examiner important enough to move government policy initiatives forward? A big dose of hubris on Fullers part.
In the post before this one we can see that “AGW comment” is a big driver of internet hits. The Examiner do have an interest in traffic… Getting thier pitch into Wattsup, with Anthony’s endorsement was a coup that is sure to boost traffic.
I suggest its a worthless survey.
Sorry. Bit of a cynical party-pooper I know.

November 1, 2009 3:50 am

Enduser (21:24:45) :
I believe It is worthwhile to participate in…
You may possibly wish to reword this phrase for grammar? 😉

Always worthwhile quoting Churchill in these instances:
‘This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.’

November 1, 2009 3:58 am

Waste of time…

November 1, 2009 4:15 am

Unlike many commentators above I do not think the questionnaire is biassed in any particulat direction. I found options in every question that covered the range of possible answers, albeit rather simplisticly.
I do find it irritating that so many contributors to this blog demonstrate an OTT knee-jerk rejection of every topic and angle that isn’t 100% dismissive of both AGW in particular and GW in general.
Show a little more genuine scepticism and less mindless partisanship, I would advise, please.

November 1, 2009 4:46 am

I thought the survey was reasonably fair. There was a wide spectrum of views you could select on whether or not manmade global warming was happening. There was even a “ignore – it will go away” as a choice of actions. The list of priorities included everything that previous polls had suggested were areas of concern for Americans.
For those that criticize for bias, can you imagine what a survey by the Guardian would look like?

November 1, 2009 4:55 am

a jones (21:56:43) is right; it assumes there is a problem, when there is none!
/Mr Lynn

John Silver
November 1, 2009 5:20 am

My 23:
How many years of prison shall Al Gore serve for his crimes of fraud?
My 24:
20 years.
I’m in a good mood today, I just had good lunch.(burp)
Normally I scream for blood.

November 1, 2009 5:32 am

I think it’s always worth the time to respond and engage non-rabid warmists.
My concluding recommendation was to have the govt NOT dictate solutions and spend money on favored items but instead set up a system of prizes awarded to the innovative folks who produce better electric batteries, mor efficient solar voltiac panels, etc. A specific set of metrics for goals to be set for each targeted technology. The result would be a society less dependent of foreign oil and more efficient.

Indiana Bones
November 1, 2009 5:33 am

michel (00:03:25) :
One must question the intent of the Examiner’s publication of the ET story. Examiner is a small internet business operating out of an office in Denver. If not entirely looney, these guys are certainly on the fringe. But I will be boning up on my Vulcan death grip… just in case.

November 1, 2009 5:42 am

The “given” is the presumption, throughout, that the most significant component of global climate change is of an anthropomorphic derivation; and, therefore, that we can have a dramatic impact on same~

November 1, 2009 6:00 am

The question that should have been asked is;
From that long list of people, who do you distrust the most?
Answer: James E. Hansen

Don S.
November 1, 2009 6:00 am

Yep, I agree with the majority opinion here. I attempted the survey the day it was printed, but was unable to complete it because of runaway blood pressure. This is just another warmist straw man. For those of you not from the US who struggled, don’t be concerned. It doesn’t make sense in American, either.

November 1, 2009 6:04 am

Beyond assuming AGW is true, It was badly crafted.

November 1, 2009 6:13 am

I have designed surveys for 30 years. This one has obvious limitations – but it is not nearly as bad as the atrocious British Science Museum single question poll. As others have noted the core issues are the assumptions that there is a major problem and that we and/or the government should do something about it.
The one interesting possibility though is that when a “push” poll rejects the fundamental premises of the poll then the sponsors of the poll need to seriously reassess their position. Hoffman’s showing in NY23 is a good example.

November 1, 2009 6:28 am

I didn’t even need to read the thing (although I did ) to know what the agenda was. The green background color on the web page gave it away immediately. Poorly constructed survey by amateurs.

November 1, 2009 6:33 am

I started to fill that bogus piece of crap out and finally dumped it. The only options were their preferred options, not both sides of the debate.
Waste of time

November 1, 2009 6:34 am

Phoenix (00:06:58) :
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?

To echo rbateman: geoengineering is absolute insanity. To even contemplate such a thing would require, in mind a level of certainty in understanding exactly how the entire climate system works in the realm of perfection.
Even if we assume that we successfully lower the global average temperature 2°C, what if Nature’s response is not cancelling, as in rbateman’s example, but amplification in the negative direction? What if we wound up inducing a -4°C global average change? The impact for many species including human, would be truly catastrophic. We can adapt to higher temperatures far more readily than we can adapt to colder temperatures.
To even begin to imagine that we can precisely tune the climate by such schemes is both the height of arrogance and by extention ignorance. Insane. That’s the one word that covers it.

November 1, 2009 6:40 am

A biased survey. No definition of “global warming”. Warming since the end of the Little Ice Age? AGW? However, since it is Tom Fuller, and he is doing his best to communicate the issues to a wider public, ok I answered the questions. Wait until he tries to collate my answers to each question.
Most important issue: immediate R&D to develop all U.S. natural energy resources (minus wind which does environmental damage and is inefficient) to end our dependence on foreign oil. Developed responsibly, of course. Then we have the affluence to plan contingencies for warm and cold, wet and dry, adequate clean water supply (not only for ourselves), adequate food supplies, and minimize “pollution” (but we cannot get beyond the 2nd Law Thermodynamics, grossly put, using energy creates waste – let’s minimize and segregate and imaginatively reuse the waste).
Most important truth: the science is not settled.

Jo Overgaard
November 1, 2009 6:44 am

I did the survey and I felt good to give some of my ideas about US politics, which I am not allowed to do as a European/JOver

November 1, 2009 6:45 am

I hope Tom will tell us: how many opted to fill in, rather than the options provided. I suspect it’s high.
I suspect a lot of us are more concerned about the unintended consequences of our responses to AGW. Rather than changes in climate.

November 1, 2009 6:48 am

geoengineering? Isn’t that what groups as EPA fine evil corporations for? Only they call is pollution?

Gary P
November 1, 2009 7:10 am

The final question asked if there was a question that should have been asked. I was polite and wrote, “Should government scientists be allowed to hide data and methods that were the basis for publications?”
Perhaps a better question would have been, “Should government scientists who hide data and methods on published work that is eventually proved to be wrong, be put on trial for crimes against humanity?” (Thank you James Hansen.)

November 1, 2009 7:25 am

1. marchesarosa, the poll completely ignored the viewpoint that government should stop trying to “fix” things, as well as the viewpoint that warming is beneficial.
2. My question was: Should the US use force of arms to for China to reduce CO2? My answer was: If not, why use force of arms on US citizens to reduce CO2?

November 1, 2009 7:33 am

The survey questions were based on the unstated assumption that global warming is human caused. Since humans didn’t cause the little ice age I was forced to enter skeptical thoughts in the boxes.
My suggestion for the last question was “Is the IPCC a scientific organization or political?” The answer was—Political.

November 1, 2009 7:36 am

Very biased survey. Quit filling out by the end. Comments that I did add
AGW ia a political dogma with a alternate agenda.
Prey we do not fall back into an iceage any time soon. Like the gov could do anything anyway.
Shut dowm NOAA and NASA

November 1, 2009 7:43 am

I didn’t like how the questions boxed readers in a corner. When he asked what I want Obama to do with 60% of his time, I wrote:

November 1, 2009 7:49 am

Question at end of survey:
Should the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant?

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2009 7:50 am

I filled it in, and hope I got across the following: 1) While I certainly do care about the environment, it is not now a huge issue, at least in the U.S. The economy is by far, the most important issue. All of the other issues mentioned, while important (I rated most a 5) pale in importance to the economy (which I rated a 10). That includes energy independence. The funny thing about the energy independence issue is how the Alarmists try to use it as an argument in favor of Cap n’ Trade schemes, but if you even mention the fact that we should be drilling more domestically, continue mining coal, and tapping into our huge supplies of NG, they scream bloody murder.
2) Warming is not a problem in the least. My final question, in fact was, Which is more dangerous to mankind and to all life – warming or cooling? Answer (of course), cooling.

Bryan Clark
November 1, 2009 7:57 am

I did the survey too. My question was: You are assuming that the earth is warming, but what if it is actually cooling? What steps or activities should we humans take to combat global cooling? Is it simply to do the opposite of everything we are supposed to be doing to fight warming?

Mike Bryant
November 1, 2009 8:27 am

I know that this survey was well intentioned, however it seems to miss many of the ascendant ideas in current American thinking. I don’t think the survey as written can really pigeonhole the major differences in thinking about AGW. I would also like to note that I think writing some survey that lines everyone up by beliefs would be difficult. Having said that, I have a feeling that there are people who read this blog, who could craft a fair survey that would more precisely line up the feelings of Americans without the need for dialog boxes.

Douglas DC
November 1, 2009 8:35 am

I used the “Other” box -if that makes me a crackpot,so be it….
“Split atoms-not birds”…

November 1, 2009 8:56 am

Ditto the majority above.
Difficult to answer the questions and get your opinion across.
For example: Do you care about poverty?
Well, yes deeply but……… 50 years of “Great Society” has been a brutal disaster for those “helped” with no improvement in poverty. Also a waste of a $Trillion but the waste is minor when compared to the human tragedy it has wrought.
So, if I put down that I care deeply about poverty, does that imply a belief that we should spend even more money on the same failed programs?
Or the question: Do you believe Anthony Watts on the topic AGW? I admire Anthony for his scientific knowledge, honesty and scepticism, but…. I come here because this is a blog where many ideas can be presented, more so than Anthony personally has The Truth.
My Question: Has government funding skewed the “science” of AGW to provide the answers that the politicians want? Well, yes!
The survey is shallow and incomplete. However, I feel that it is probably an honest attempt to find common ground. I suspect that whoever crafted it holds the beliefs that AGW is real and possibly a Threat to Humanity and that only Big Government can make a Positive Difference.
Steamboat Jack

DJ Meredith
November 1, 2009 9:26 am

I too was disappointed by the obviously pro-AGW bias in the questions. However well intentioned, I feel that Fuller could have done a much better job by working with a balanced “skeptic” to formulate a truly neutral survey.

November 1, 2009 9:34 am

I don’t see geo-engineering getting off the ground.Good way to start a world war,that idea.How would American scientists feel about Russian or Chinese scientists experimenting with earth’s atmosphere?
I didn’t really have a problem with answering the American politics question,I’ve read enough about it lately.I have a vested interest in seeing America stay a strong economic power,your country is my country’s umbrella.I can’t understand why people want to see the US brought down economically.I shudder to think of a world with a powerless USA.

J. Peden
November 1, 2009 9:52 am

marchesarosa (04:15:17) :
I do find it irritating that so many contributors to this blog demonstrate an OTT knee-jerk rejection of every topic and angle that isn’t 100% dismissive of both AGW in particular and GW in general.
Not to mention also the Chinese and Indians! Now there’s some real over the top, knee-jerk dismissiveness in action, if you ask me.

November 1, 2009 10:40 am

To understand the risks of geo-engineering you only have to look at similar efforts to “improve things” by importing non-native species into environments where there are no natural predators. Also the unintentional introduction of such species, like the brown tree snake to the island of Guam
See rabbits in Australia, and kudsu

November 1, 2009 10:51 am

Completed said survey, but was terribly disappointed in the obvious point of view based on some of the questions and more pointedly, the narrowly focused answer selections.
I ended up writing in the other box all too often, as the choices were just simple minded.

Jeff L
November 1, 2009 11:05 am

Anthony, please post the results when they are done – it will be interesting to see
Question I asked:
Is the AGW debate a scientific or political debate

November 1, 2009 11:08 am

I took the survey.
Why did all the questions assume government is somehow the answer? I’m glad there was plenty of white space to explain my views that didn’t fit “inside the box.” That was a very good feature of the survey.

P Walker
November 1, 2009 11:36 am

I too used the ” other ” option frequently . In response to one question – I forget which – I replied , ” You’re kidding right ? “

November 1, 2009 11:38 am

I took the survey before reading the comments here, and see that Phoenix (00:06:58) brought up a point that I made in one of the boxes. He wrote “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 have a suspicion that most of the measures proposed will have unforeseen unintended consequences. Increased acid rain, anybody? Why won’t scientists learn from their past mistakes? Hotrod (10:40:21) makes the point already about the introduction of foreign species, and their disastrous historic conesquences, so I won’t elaborate. At least the survey had abundant points at which one could disagree with the options provided.

November 1, 2009 11:48 am

Utterly pointless. Examiner is a bit LLC operation out of a Denver shoebox. Aside from their gluttonous publishing contracts – this little clan has already been “marginalized.” Another futile exercise in the badly conceived “climate change” program. Skeptics should take a hard look at the Brookings Report. Their conclusions are born out by prisoner behavior in gulags and concentration camps through time. In the face of overwhelming fascism – the theme song of M*A*S*H concludes – ” Suicide is painless…”

Claude Culross
November 1, 2009 1:26 pm

I was mildly offended by what I saw as slanted commentary.
My feedback at Examiner.com…..
You seem to conflate natural global warming & AGW, making it hard for your readers to understand exactly what you’re saying.
You assume as settled a number of subjects that I’m sure your readers would like to see discussed.
You call moving to greener energy sources a no-brainer, when there are legitimate questions of how robust, reliable, widespread and economic these energy sources can be. Let’s not discount them, but let’s have an honest discussion.
You add to the very politicization that you decry by interminably wringing your hands over it. Just state your position and be done with it.
While lamenting that good ideas are sometimes rejected because of their source, you perpetuate that very problem by complaining about funding sources. If Joe Romm has a great idea funded by Satan, it’s still a great idea regardless of Satanic funding.
And your greatly affected “can’t we all get along” plea is so very off the mark. Bad ideas and good ideas can never get along.

anna v
November 1, 2009 1:49 pm

JLKrueger (06:34:26) :
Phoenix (00:06:58) :
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?
To echo rbateman: geoengineering is absolute insanity. To even contemplate such a thing would require, in mind a level of certainty in understanding exactly how the entire climate system works in the realm of perfection.
Even if we assume that we successfully lower the global average temperature 2°C, what if Nature’s response is not cancelling, as in rbateman’s example, but amplification in the negative direction? What if we wound up inducing a -4°C global average change? The impact for many species including human, would be truly catastrophic. We can adapt to higher temperatures far more readily than we can adapt to colder temperatures.
To even begin to imagine that we can precisely tune the climate by such schemes is both the height of arrogance and by extention ignorance. Insane. That’s the one word that covers it.

Oh dear, Oh dear.
To start with, humans have been geoengineering haphazardly since they appeared on earth in force. Why, even beavers geoengineer.
We have flooded and we have drained and we have cut most of the woods in many places etc etc. Pielke Senior is aware of that. I even read of a recent study that claimed even “pristine” woods were not that, but had been engineered by the first humans.
Thus, what we need is good geoengineering, with solid studies, incremental and reversible for the case of climate mitigation. I sure hope for my children and their children that there will be geoengineering during the next ice age.
Sulfur and algae and stuff are apprentice magician and I agree dangerous because not reversible.
Mirrors in space though, in such a way as to shade if wanted or reflect to the earth a lot of extra sunshine if the ice age cometh would not be a waste of money. ( Once I mooted turning the moon into a mirror if the ice age cometh, but have not been able to calculate if enough watts per meter square would be delivered to the earth).
If I believed that the world is warming, which I do not, because the data say it is not, but say if, I would go for the automated ships seeding clouds to increase the albedo. One can stop them on a penny.

November 1, 2009 1:58 pm

“Because it is in the interests of politicians to generate fear and because tax payer funded scientists have economic incentives to stoke that fear.”
Was my answer to the question that was missing!

November 1, 2009 3:03 pm

Interestingly the result of the Science Museum, London poll on action to stop CO2 polution now stands at:-
# 958 counted in so far
# 6054 counted out so far
Poll ends in December – if you want to get your view across please follow the link – only takes a couple of minutes:-

John Lish
November 1, 2009 3:35 pm

I think that some of the above comments are harsh. Yes, it could have done with some clarifications over definitions of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ which are open to multiple interpretations. Also, I agree that the politics were too USA-centric but I qualified my political answers by stating I was an UK citizen although I drew the line at advising Obama on what he should be focusing on in his domestic agenda.
It is difficult for those of us who think human agency and climate is complex to be appeased by any such survey as it will make the assumption of CO2 as the primary agent as this is what the current debate has been defined as. I made the point to Tom that this construction of the debate is what generates the heat as it allows people to take sides easily. Anybody with a nuance of difference in opinion is cast as being pro or anti by those framing the debate in simple terms.
However, by having text boxes available, there was a chance to engage with the questionnaire, re-interpret & re-define questions and broaden out the replies. I hope this engagement is reflected in the analysis and I look forward to reading it.

November 1, 2009 3:47 pm

some pretty mindless questions and amateurish.
but i was (and always am) disappointed that there are basically crickets wrt any serious technological solution.
Fusion energy may prove quite doable in 30 years. Advanced nuclear research would be very welcome.
the survey author mentioned solar, wind, nuclear energy together in the same question. Poor survey construction
chasing windmills is very mindless

November 1, 2009 4:09 pm

There is an interesting indicator of how the belief in Global Warming is progressing, a Exchange Traded Index security known as “ELEMENTS CS Global Warming ETN” The investment’s descriptor states the “investment seeks to replicate, net of expenses, the Credit Suisse Global Warming Index. The index is composed of companies that have an increased focus on products or services related to minimizing global warming.” [emphasis added]
The ticker is GWO.
This security started in April 2008, selling initially for $10 to $11 per share. It fell to $4 and has now climbed back to $6.75. Not exactly climbing like a rocket. see
If the world were warming, the seas were rising, hurricanes were growing more in number and strength, and the polar ice were melting, one would think that this particular security would be the best investment of all time. It should be zooming upward.
This is not a recommendation either to buy, sell, or hold any security, but is merely an observation that a certain security exists and factual comment on its past performance.

David Alan
November 1, 2009 4:09 pm

After hitting the [Done] button, Mr. Fuller comments on the purpose of the survey. Here are 4 quotes that stand out.
1. “I really want to know if there are concrete actions we can agree on without having a verdict on the global warming issue.”
Excuse me but if there is no global warming, where is the need for concrete action?
2. “Things that I feel are ‘no-brainers’ like conservation and moving to greener energy sources..”
He’s implying that we need greener energy sources, even if there is no global warming.
3. “We’re (too) busy shutting our eyes to good ideas because we don’t like the other guy’s politics.”
Good Ideas? Like what, wind mills? Fuller is confused. His assumption that the other guy (skeptics+republicans=blind) doesn’t like the idea because of politics. Dude, we don’t like it because fossil fuels work. Period.
We can integrate alternative energy as it becomes nessasary, feasible, and cost effective. I’m not willing to throw away good money to line the pockets of greenies.
4. “I mean, we do want to move forward, don’t we?”
(Drum Roll) … If someone doesn’t agree with the whole idea of taking action, then that person doesn’t want to move forward.
This survey and Fullers’ comment should shed light to the thinking of the mentality of the green agenda. Its like they are saying,’Please, if you won’t do it for us, please do it because its the right thing to do.’
Here, let me reverse that psychobabble for ya. Let’s use the fossil fuels we have here in our own country and find ways to stop relying on foreign consumption.
But with that being said, I’m not a skeptic because of any political connection. Its because AGW is based on bad science and I’m insulted that men like Fuller and his Ilk think that in order to be a skeptic, is only motivated by big business. The fact is that the average person, whose done any amount of research, drew a conclusion that AGW is a crock and the average skeptic is tired of the lies, manipulations and the ad hominum attacks from greenies.
Wake the hell up !
/rant off

John Mackie
November 1, 2009 4:25 pm

Mark.R (01:11:48) :
My question was do you think AGW is a smoke screen for the new world order?.
Ditto. Halleluya. Nail. Head.

November 1, 2009 4:50 pm

Fuller is a know-nothing who nevertheless is confident that he has the reasonable middle way forward: move ahead with “no brainers” like unplugging the energy foundations of our economy because this is somehow desirable whether or not fossil fuel burning is actually harmful. On the other hand, he does seem willing to listen, and who knows, might even be capable of realizing that he is a know-nothing, and that his uninformed guesses about the way forward are uninformed guesses. My comment on his blog:
Conservation and moving to greener energy sources are indeed a “no brainer,” in the sense that only a person with no brain thinks these are correct directions.
If human caused global warming is a scientific fraud–and it is–then “greener energy” in the less-CO2 sense is NOT a desideratum. Also, we are very clearly at present doing far too much conserving of energy, which is why our economy is collapsing.
Restrictions on energy development make energy prices artificially high, meaning that as people respond to these artificially high price signals, they end up conserving too much. We should NOT be conserving more. We should be conserving LESS.
The United States has the largest fossil energy reserves in the world by far, and we should be developing them full speed. We could revive our economy tomorrow just by literally “pouring on the coals.” Our trade deficit would reverse. We could pay down our national debt (as much of the land is gov. owned). All but for an anti-scientific hoax.

a jones
November 1, 2009 5:17 pm

I should have mentioned this before but in the way of things…places to go, people to see etc, didn’t get round to it.
I don’t know why you list Fuller as a sceptic, except in his own estimation. But he is not, as he makes clear again and again he believes AGW is real and expects a 2 degree rise over the century.
Hi survey also makes that clear, I am not a US citizen and so will not comment on US policy questions: but the underlying assumption throughout the survey was that there is a problem and how best to fix it.
All of which probably puts him at the warm end of the lukewarm category.
Kindest Regards

November 1, 2009 5:37 pm

No offense, Tom, but as I see it the survey is biased. The problem is the mindset of the questions. By that I mean not only the fealty to the myth and hoax of AGW, but to the larger mindset of subservience to authoritarian control. Which massive government program shall be instituted to “mitigate” the mostly beneficial effects of global warming? Shall it be new confiscatory taxes on energy, massive deficit spending, leagues of ugly windmills, geoengineering the oceans, giant mirrors in outer space, or a combination of all of those and more? What humongous social sacrifice is most desireable? Which sacred pyramid shall we build next? How shall we engineer humanity?
To be fair, the mega-communalist mindset is widely shared. People raised in the legacy of freedom have rejected it. On the whole, we would rather be told where and how to live, think, speak, work, etc. than to embrace the freedom to choose those things for ourselves. The long history of humanity has almost always been feudal and authoritarian. Slavery and serfdom are ancient ways — the American experiment in individual liberty is brand new and completely different.
These days most people, including intelligent intellectuals (no offense, Tom), are loathe to even consider the possibility of free societies. The mindset is that humanity is bad and must be corralled and culled. Any excuse, no matter how bizarre and illogical (the AGW Scare is merely the latest in imaginary evils at the gates of the city), suffices to curtail freedoms, inflict burdens and suffering, and “unite” people into obedient herds.
It’s the same old story. Freedom isn’t free; in fact, it is more rare and precious than diamonds. And it is easily squandered and lost.
And that is what we are witnessing today, the decline and collapse of a short-lived experiment in freedom. It is the true big elephant in the room, that nobody wants to mention for fear of being seen as a kook. The idea of personal liberty has become old fashioned, outre, and jejune. Only the crazies desire it. The masses yearn for conforming authority and all its chains.

November 1, 2009 5:50 pm

I took the survey and felt that the person who did it didn’t know what they were talking about. What background that qualifies them as is a conjecture.

November 2, 2009 3:30 am

I do not believe the issue is really “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or even, for that matter, “Anthropogenic Global Warming” per se. I believe the real issue is fixation on carbon dioxide as the one and only possible cause of climate change and the belief that the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is extremely close to a major tipping point that will cause a global disaster of biblical proportions.
Supposedly, the real science is now settled and carbon dioxide alone has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be the active agent of climate change. I do not doubt climate change, but I am skeptical that the “usual suspect” is the primary cause. It seems all too simple, especially as the impact of carbon dioxide is self-limited by a logarithmic law of diminishing effect. Even world renowned scientists can be members of a lynch mob or be victims of a group prejudicial derangement syndrome.

November 2, 2009 4:59 am

What a tool. I used the comment boxes in that survey “liberally”.

November 2, 2009 7:34 am

It’s probably a good thing if the moonbats and wingnuts don’t participate anyway as their views are rarely useful. A couple of Bertrand Russel quotes are apt:
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
The ‘untainted planet in equilibrium despoiled by mankind’ and the ‘invisible hand that is always correct’ are the two opposing and equally ridiculous philosophies that do far more harm than good in this debate. I’d rather we looked for common goals as Fuller suggests. There are a lot of green ideas that can also achieve overall and individual cost savings and there are several ways that government can (and need to) push them to allow the market to pull.

Roger Knights
November 2, 2009 11:04 am

I don’t think it’s absurd that Fuller thinks there are some “green” things we can agree on even in the absence of AGW. E.g., making better use of natural gas, or nuclear, or geothermal; or offering inducements for improved insulation, etc. (I don’t agree with most such reforms, of course.)
Fuller is not an AWGer. He was the blogger who, in cooperation with WUWT, helped to “out” Dr. Carlin’s suppressed EPA report. Here’s the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/
There are a couple of other links on this site that turn up if you use the site search box for “fuller”. One link that doesn’t turn up was his initial appearance here, when he posted a nasty response he’d received at RC to a list of skeptical questions he’d posted there. Quite a conversation developed from that, although I don’t recall the thread.
His questionnaire is the sort of questionnaire that any middle-of-the-road pollster would produce. The extreme criticisms of it are, I think, mostly based on a wrong guess about where he is coming from.

Mike Bryant
November 2, 2009 2:51 pm

I think there should only be one question.
Including increased costs of gasoline, electricity, every single item you buy, every single service you buy, and every single tax you pay, how much money in dollars extra are you willing to pay yearly out of your already shrunken paycheck?
A) Zero
B) Up to five dollars
C) Up to one hundred dollars
D) Whatever the government wants to take
E) I think the government needs to start giving me my money back.

November 2, 2009 4:34 pm

Yep, totally worthless. Don’t waste your time.

November 2, 2009 7:06 pm

I saw an add for a movie or a tv show that’s coming out, I can’t remember which. The premise is this…….. There is a button and if you push it you get a million dollars but if you do somewhere in the world a person will die.
The AGW crowd offers us a reverse scenario much like the questions on this survey……. There is a button and if you push it the environment and thereby people will live but somewhere your money and your freedom will die.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

jack mosevich
November 4, 2009 11:24 am
%d bloggers like this: