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.
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.
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
http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00128/en/rabbits/history.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/rabbitki.htm
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Birds/Facts/FactSheets/fact-guambirds.cfm
http://www.maxshores.com/kudzu/
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2324
Larry
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.
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
Answer:
Political
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.
I too used the ” other ” option frequently . In response to one question – I forget which – I replied , ” You’re kidding right ? “
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.
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…”
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.
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.
“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!
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:-
http://sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
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.
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
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
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GWO&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
.
What a tool. I used the comment boxes in that survey “liberally”.
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.
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.