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.
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.
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.
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
Green Jobs!
My question was do you think AGW is a smooke screen for the new world order?.
smoke
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.
This survey should have been submitted here (or somewhere) for suggestions prior to posting.
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.
I’ve just taken it. It’s not that bad. I don’t think it’s biased.
Really poor survey.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.’
🙂
Waste of time…
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.
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?
a jones (21:56:43) is right; it assumes there is a problem, when there is none!
/Mr Lynn
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.
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.
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.