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.
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~
The question that should have been asked is;
From that long list of people, who do you distrust the most?
Answer: James E. Hansen
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.
Beyond assuming AGW is true, It was badly crafted.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
geoengineering? Isn’t that what groups as EPA fine evil corporations for? Only they call is pollution?
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.)
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?
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.
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
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:
VACATION!!
Question at end of survey:
Should the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant?
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.
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?
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.
Mike
I used the “Other” box -if that makes me a crackpot,so be it….
“Split atoms-not birds”…
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.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
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.
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.