Fully a third don’t agree that man is the primary driver
Another survey of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) from George Mason University (home of Shukla and the RICO20) on climate change attitudes in that organization was released yesterday. However, the survey itself is tainted with the stench of the RICO20 and their calls for prosecution and jailing of “climate deniers”.
The survey results show a general acceptance of the view that climate change is happening, and that the cause is partly due to human activity, but there is a contingent that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Dr. Roy Spencer notes on his blog:
But what I find interesting is that the supposed 97% consensus on climate change (which we know is bogus anyway) turns into only 67% when we consider the number of people who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans, as indicated by this bar chart:
Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)…or simply think we “don’t know”.
For something that is supposed to be “settled science”, I find that rather remarkable.
Even given that 1/3 who don’t attribute man-made causes, personally, I think the numbers aren’t fully representative of what AMS members really think and that 1/3 number would actually be higher.
Two colleagues I know locally also got this survey, and they didn’t send it in because they didn’t believe their opinion or identity would actually be protected. Given that the operator of the survey, George Mason University is a hotbed of calls for prosecution and jailing of “deniers”, and that Edward Maibach is one of the people who signed the letter to the Whitehouse and who operated this particular AMS survey, I can’t say that I blame them. I wouldn’t have sent it in either when the man asking the questions might flag you for criminal prosecution for having an opinion he doesn’t like.
Survey results are available here: https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
Good lord, for the last 3 billion years, the ‘climate’ has always ‘changed’!
Calling this latest hysteria ‘climate change’ is fraud. They do this deliberately. This survey was all about theology, not science.
So 81% said humans are responsible for at least half of climate change over the last 50 years..that’s a blow to the folks here that say C02 has no effect on the climate.
Oh dear, some still think consensus means anything concerning scientific research.
I think you had a blow.. on the head mate
Half of “not very much, and in a good direction” is not very much, and in a good direction.
..Maybe you should change the name to ” SPAZZZ ” !!
Wrong answer, thermobilly, half the people wouldn’t even deign to answer it because it was so reprehensibly written and administered.
Earth’s carbon cycle contains 45,000 Gt (E15 gr) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred Gt/y ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y. Doesn’t seem to me that amounts to much.
Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 added 2 W/m2 of radiative forcing to the earth’s atmosphere. (IPCC AR5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m2, albedo RF is 100 W/m2 +/- 30, latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/- 8. That 2 W/m2 is obviously trivial. The popular GHE theory is a perpetual loop flowing from cold to hot violating two fundamental thermodynamic laws. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 9 out of 10 balance models (Trenberth et. al. 2011) show cooling, not warming.
Every year that the pause continues IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal and waste our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.
A real survey: Use standard opinion survey telephone techniques, not misleading email self-selection. Ask respondents to assume that current estimates of global surface temperatures over the 20th century are reasonably accurate. Ask respondents to assume the current IPCC estimate of human carbon emissions being responsible for the majority of the late 20th century global warming (X degrees) is generally accurate. Ask respondents to choose which of the following is responsible for the early 20th century warming (about the same X degrees): A. Humans; B. Nature; C. A Combination; and D. Don’t Know.
[Hit Reply by mistake.] Next question: If respondent answers “C” ask him/her/it which of the following most closely match the relative responsibility of Humans vs. Nature (H/N): A. 50/50; B. 75/25; C. 90/10; D.25/75; 10/90; E. A Bit More H Than N; and F. A Bit More N Than H. Ask “C” responders if their answer affected their opinion of late 20th century warming causation A. Human CO2 Is The Primary Cause; B. Human CO2 Plays A Role; and C. CO2 Has Little Or No Effect.
Asking people if they believe or think that humans cause CAGW is not the same asking do you know.
When IPCC itself talks about the share of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is only “a part” of more than half of the global average temperature [50.1% is also more than half], how can the second bar with 38% go into the far group. That means more than two-thirds are against the human contribution [even under human contribution, there are several factors other than greenhouse effect].
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Seems we all have lots of questions about this survey.
You know how they always discount and shred our opinions because we’re all “shills for big oil”?
Perhaps we should just “consider the source”?
Or sponsor someone less threatening, like the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) or social psychologist Dr. Jose Duarte, to do the survey correctly (e.g. specific definitions, questions that are unambiguous and correctly structured, etc.).
I’m surprised nobody mentioned the 2003 online survey by Professor Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of Germany’s Institute of Coastal Reseach. I know it’s been 13 years, but it was also before the “Pause” was definitively identified. They conducted a survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 countries. The statement was, “to what extent do you Agree or Disagree that Climate Change is Mostly the result of Anthropogenic Causes? They were asked to rate the statement on a scale of 1 through 7, with with 1 being Strong Agreement and 7 indicating Strong Disagreement. 42% were either Neutral or Disagreed, with 29% either Disagreeing or Strongly Disagreeing with the statement (that is 13% were Neutral). Only 9% Strongly Agreed that Climate Change is mostly the result of Anthropogenic Causes. The mean answer was 3.62. The capitalization of some words, like Agreement/Disagreement, was my doing.
3 ¢ Worth…
…got some linky goodness? I vaguely recall that, and I’d like to re-read the survey.
TIA.
67% of these folk must have evidence that they have been keeping hidden from us all.
This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:
Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.
However, WaPo is reporting that this GMU survey found AMS members more worried than they were in a survey Identical to this (superficial) one about four (?) years ago.
So 81% of AMS members believe that AGW is real, and is responsible for 50% or more of the total warming that has occurred. I’d call that a substantial majority. Especially given that 6% said they don’t know – it is not correct to include those with the respondents who say that AGW is small or not a factor in warming that has occurred. Saying you don’t know is not a rejection of AGW (nor an endorsement). That leaves 13% that say no warming has occurred, or that AGW is a minor or negligible contributor to warming. 81% to 13% is a ratio of 6.2 to 1; the 81% figure would increase to 86% if you remove the “I don’t know” respondents from the totals.
Yes, 97% and 81% are substantial majorities. But (as someone said here a few weeks ago) there’s a vast difference between a 3% minority (ignorable cranks and crazies) and a 19% minority (a non-dismissible minority).
It’s not a 19% minority, it’s 13%. The 6% don’t knows should not be lumped in with either category. So it’s 81% against 13%. Yes, 13% is more than 3%, but that ignores the bigger point. In the skeptics talk about lack of total consensus, that position implies that a total consensus is required before action can be taken. That is just not the case. Secondly, it ignores the cost of doing nothing. Unlike, for example, a debate about the origin of black holes, which doesn’t directly affect life on earth, the AGW issue has real impacts, and delaying action until there is 100% agreement has costs.
Chris,
You’re babbling like an idiot.
Honest science has nothing to do with ‘consensus’. Science is all about evidence, observations, and facts.
Your side has NONE of those things. All you have is politics.
Get lost, chump.
As always, db trots out the tough guy talk when he can’t win with logic and facts.
Chris,
Wake me when you have any logical arguments. That will be a first, chump.
db, I’ve got most everyone on my side, chump. You’re the one who needs to come up with data to convince the rest of us. Keep patting yourself on the back here on WUWT, in your tiny, infinitesimal corner of the world.
Chris says:
“I’ve got most everyone on my side…”
Both of you, eh, chump? You’re still babbling like an idiot with your ‘consensus’ nonsense.
All you’ve got is your corrupt political arguments. You never had any credible scientific arguments. Trolling with politics is all you ever had. Chump.
Chris, that still leaves a majority not supporting the CAGW meme. Its dead Jim.
David, per the numbers I discussed, the vast majority support the AGW conclusion, and commitments and action by companies and governments are already underway. Skeptics hang their hat on CAGW since they’ve already lost the AGW battle.
Chris,
Keep dreaming your delusions. The “vast majority”, heh. You can’t even quantify AGW with a verifiable measurement, but you presume to declare victory??
You’re nuts, you know that?
Probably not.
dbstealey, I’ve posted articles before about the direct measurement of the change in balance of LWIR, as well as quantified measurements taken. You’ve ignored them. Haha, I’m nuts, am I? Then you are saying the Fortune 1000 companies are nuts, the oil companies (Exxon’s own scientists said AGW is real), the world’s scientific organizations. We’re all nuts, and only the small skeptic community here on WUWT and other skeptic sites are correct. Keep dreaming your delusional dream, db.
Chris,
Wake me if/when you can produce an empirical, testable measurement quantifying AGW. So far, you’ve failed, just like the rest of your alarmist ilk.
When you can’t even measure what you claim is gonna cause climate catastrophe, you’re just another climate alarmist clown.
dbstealey said: “Wake me if/when you can produce an empirical, testable measurement quantifying AGW. So far, you’ve failed, just like the rest of your alarmist ilk.”
Stay asleep, db, it doesn’t matter what you say. Nobody is listening to you that is in any position of influence. Nobody. The ‘alarmist ilk” have not failed, we have the Fortune 1000 who agree with our conclusion, governments, most climate scientists, the oil companies, the insurance companies. So how have we failed? Just because we didn’t convince you? So what?
As to your request for an empirical, testable measurement, there are a number of videos showing lab level demonstrations of the greenhouse effect of CO2. There are satellite measurements of the change in radiation balance over the last 30 years. But I am sure you are demanding something that can be individually tested on a planetary scale – in other words, you are demanding something that cannot be done. It cannot be done for CO2, or for El Nino, or AMO, or volcanoes, or orbital variation – because it is not possible to vary only one of those while holding all the others constant.
Chris says:
Nobody is listening to you that is in any position of influence. Nobody.
That applies in spades to Chris, the anonymous troll. But based on the numerous responses I get,it’s clear I have far more influence than Chris is willing to admit.
Next:
…there are a number of videos showing lab level demonstrations of the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Not one of them is credible. They all fail. The standard for credibility is that the measurements must be acceptable by all sides of the AGW debate, so it’s just wishful thinking on your part. Your ‘videos’ are meaningless pablum, fit only for religious True Believers like you. Skeptical scientists — the only honest kind of scientists — have been waiting since before Arrhenius for the first verifiable measurement of AGW. It still doesn’t exist.
Next:
…radiation balance…
…is just more deflection. MEASUREMENTS that quantify AGW are what’s required, but neither you nor anyone else has produced those measurements. Your alarmist clique missed the biggest, most significant temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped for almost twenty years! If you could measure AGW, you would have predicted that. But you failed. As usual.
Next:
… you are demanding something that cannot be done.
Wrong as always. Quantum physics measures subatomic forces to more than a dozen decimal places — but you whine that AGW can’t be measured! More deflection. The fact is that AGW can’t be measured with current instruments, because it is simply too minuscule. And since it is so tiny, it is a non-problem.
Maybe you can come up with similar pathetic excuses to the ones above. Post ’em, and I’ll knock those out of the ballpark, too. You’re trying to sell a pig in a poke. But the fact is, you’ve got nothin’.
Chris,
“There are satellite measurements of the change in radiation balance over the last 30 years”.
The radiation balance changes all the time. We cannot currently accurately measure it directly, not even with satellites.
Trenberth et al 2014–
“Quantifying the absolute energy imbalance requires a level of accuracy not available from any direct measurements whether from satelliteborne instruments (e.g., Loeb et al. 2009) or others. It can be estimated from climate model simulations, which in turn require validation to provide confidence in their results, and the results also depend on the veracity of the specified climate forcings. It can also be estimated by an inventory of the rates of changes of energy stored in all components of the climate system, the most important of which is the ocean and thus changes in the ocean heat content (OHC).
“The changes in TOA energy imbalance over time do not require accurate knowledge of the absolute values, but rather they require a consistent stable set of instrumental measurements with adequate precision. That is, they may be biased in some, perhaps unknown, way. While The planetary imbalance at TOA is too small to measure directly from satellite instruments are far more stable than they are absolutely accurate with calibration stability <0.3 W m−2 decade−1 (95% confidence)
Chris- do you actually believe that lab test results with contained CO2 molecules can be directly extrapolated to atmospheric CO2 in an open, chaotic system? Do you believe it's logical to extrapolate the dynamics in your family fish tank as being equal to or the same as to those in the ocean?
"But I am sure you are demanding something that can be individually tested on a planetary scale – in other words, you are demanding something that cannot be done. It cannot be done for CO2, or for El Nino, or AMO, or volcanoes, or orbital variation – because it is not possible to vary only one of those while holding all the others constant."
And yet YOU are insistent that if we DO adjust, add, or cut back on just ONE element-CO2-all of those other things will remain or revert back to "constant". AGW theory depends upon human beings changing just ONE thing…The amount of CO2 in the air. And all of those models are based upon varying just one thing…CO2 levels, all other things remaining constant to what they think they know about them, and yet those models are all wrong. But that doesn't stop you from demanding changes on a planetary scale without a shred of proof that it would change anything! Hypocrite.
Anonymous Coward ‘Chris’ says:
it doesn’t matter what you say.
It sure matters to you, doesn’t it, AC?
All you have are your failed appeal to authority arguments. But the one thing you do not have, and have never had, are emprirical, testable measurements quantifying what you’re trying to sell.
Science is all about data. Measurements are data. But you’ve got nothin’.
Keep posting about your fictitious videos. Maybe seaice will be impressed. No one else is.
Finally, you ask:
So how have we failed?
You failed miserably when neither you nor anyone else was able to predict the fact that global warming stopped for almost 20 years! It’s hard to imagine a bigger failure than that, AC. You’ve never gotten anything right, Mr. Failure.
From day one the 97% idea had virtual of meaning or value , to get 97% of people to agree with anything is hard enough to do that subject that is far from settled impossible, it was and still is a purely political point designed to show truth but to offer support to that which if honesty was used would lack it .
And it worth remember at this stage that NO ONE even knows how many climate scientists there are , in fact there is not even agreed definition of what makes someone a climate scientists , a term applied in the past to failed politicians and railway engineers .
So basic maths , to know what percentage of a whole group a number of people are , you must know the size of the whole group to begin. And in this area that is unknown, the 97% literally has meaning , so perfect for climate ‘science ‘
If there’s a poll; a question is
‘You have the advantage to steal an expensive car. You take it: yes, no, maybe.’
Then that’s a studie about a topic and the interviewer should bring a characteristic profil of the cohort.
________
Just send a copy of the e-mail with the pdf questionair at your own account ‘depending: don’t lead me astray.’
‘yes, no, maybe’ – equal show you’re as trustful as EVERY other man.
10 ys later in troubles with your employer that e-mail is proof of harrasment!
Yes, my dinglish –
If there’s a poll; a question is
‘You steal an expensive car without risk. You take it: yes, no, maybe.’
Then that’s a studie about a topic and the interviewer should bring a characteristic profil of the cohort.
________
Just send a copy of the e-mail with the pdf questionair at your own account concerning : don’t lead me astray.’
‘yes, no, maybe’ – equal show you’re as reliable as EVERY other man.
10 ys later in troubles with your employer that e-mail is proof of harrasment!
Regards – Hans
And I assure You – all employers know that. Thei’re just men like the others.
Another issue: 1% believe there has been no climate change in the last 50 years. Given that there has been climate change in the last 50 seconds, how are we to take this? Obviously, how we are to take it is that respondants were left to their own devices in defining climate change. For instance, I would be in that 1% not because I believe we have had no climate change, but because we have had no climate change that fell outside of normal historical bounds. That is how I would have defined “no clmate change”–no change in the range or degree of change.
The whole survey is meaningless not just because the survey creators have consciously created a fear of imprisonment among those who answer “incorrectly,” but also because the meaning of the terms is imprecise such that most respondents could be moved one or more categories over depending on their sense of what the words mean.
Climate occurs over longer time periods than seconds. It’s the average of WX for at least decades, but more meaningfully, centuries, millennia and longer intervals.
They have the demographic data, so why weren’t the views of “climate experts” reported? A common defense by pro-AGW crowd is the “deniers” are non-experts. Similarly, much (all?) of the argument against the 97% concensus focuses on the small sample of “experts”. With over 30% of respondents describing themselves as climate experts, I’m interested in their opinions and how it contrasts with the 97% survey. Perhaps this info is in a paper that’s under review? Or perhaps the >2/3 that think man is mostly or entirely responsible is dominated by the non-experts who base their views on reports made by the MSM and will never see the light of day.
And then – that precautionary thingings,
– that Renee Descartes logic
– that ‘don’t ask what what your country does for you but ask what you can do for your contry.
+ that religious dilemma:
believing in God – will he believe in me; wait and see.
His problem not less than mine: agnostic both.
doze away, my god.
Religion is NOT settled.
full stop.
Hans
NW sage, 3/25/16 5:43 pm, said,
This – the content of the definition – is a very important distinction. If the anthropological part is left out of the United Nations ‘official’ definition – and the respondents realize that fact (It must be made very clear) the answers should be very different.
+1! Too bad the UN doesn’t agree with him. Science does.
One problem with the (UN)IPCC is that its Glossaries are showcases of definitions, supplied as a façade. Some key definitions there do not apply to the main bodies of the Assessment Reports.
A most obvious example is its definition of Lifetime for atmospheric gases in which the Mean Residence Time for atmospheric CO2 works out to 0.68 – 2.1 years using IPCC data. The simple formula is high school physics for a leaky bucket. However, in the main body of its Reports, anthropogenic CO2 lasts for thousands of years, a self-conscious tempering of Archer’s extreme 30 – 35 Kyrs. An exaggerated lifetime is necessary to convert the Keeling curve into a global master series for calibrating all the CO2 measuring stations into agreement, for its radiative forcing model to produce the desired catastrophe from the accumulation of anthropogenic (but not natural) CO2 emissions, and for the bonus bogeyman of ocean acidification, which, like Archer’s estimate, benefits form the ludicrous assumption that the ocean surface layer is in thermodynamic equilibrium.
With regard to the AMS survey, the problem at the UN begins with the fact that the UN has two different definitions of climate change. IPCC faithfully supplies both in its careful, scientific Glossaries. E.g., AR5, Glossary, p. 1450. UNFCCC defines climate change as strictly anthropogenic, which IPCC, acting as the wise professor, restricts on behalf of UNFCCC to mean climate change, the anthropogenic part, versus climate variability, the corresponding natural phenomenon. But for IPCC Assessment Reports, it says that climate change includes both natural and manmade, the definition supplied by AMS in its survey, and the definition rationally impossible to deem fictitious.
IPCC’s first step in modeling climate is to cleave the cause of climate in two. It assumes that the natural part, climate variability, proceeds in some (undefined) kind of equilibrium, so that by design its model only represents the added, uncoupled, manmade part, a part which obeys different physics. The result has been an embarrassment for IPCC, a manifestation of the two-decade old pause. Its GCM prediction of ECS, its only testable prediction, at 3.0ºC for a doubling of CO2 is now being measured with satellite data at 0.77º, valid at a 2.2% confidence level, extrapolating IPCC’s probability distribution. A Popperist might be able to rationalize this as a falsification clause.
But none of that matters to IPCC. It devotes no ink to justifying its failure to rely on its own definitions. Perhaps that is the subconscious course followed by AMS member respondents. Instead, IPCC subtly fades from climate change to global warming, a term that is (1) definition-free, and (2) used two to three times as often as climate change, notwithstanding that the CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change, notwithstanding that each of its Assessment Reports is titled Climate Change [year].
IPCC’s climate change usage is absolutely flat, appearing 94 time in the TAR (Climate Change 2001), 117 times in AR4 (Climate Change 2007), and 92 times in AR5 (Climate Change 2013), a growth rate of 1 followed by 15 zeros. Global warming usage is 185, 305, and 385, respectively, a growth rate of 6.3% per annum, showing IPCC’s ever-increasing intensity in relating its anthropogenic tale. (Numbers include usage in titles and references.)
IPCC uses global warming to finesse its readers, specifically policymakers, into blindly accepting it as a synonym, and (a) always positive, (b) equivalent to climate change, and (c) to mean anthropogenic, which morphs IPCC’s terminology into the carefully distinguished UNFCCC definition, plus (d) unwittingly to transfer the obvious certainty of the fact of climate change onto the failed conjecture of (anthropogenic) climate change.
Among definitions in climate, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, is important because it helps focus the public on the fact that IPCC is purveying a faux science. AGW never appears in the latest three Assessment Reports. And of course never could appear.
Jeff Glassman,
Excellent analysis. The IPCC is always playing those word games. AGW has never been quantified with empirical measurements. It’s always been just a giant head fake.
And 2nd I’ll assure You:
What Abraham, Mose + Isa Ben Mariam told was live long learning; a proto science witness, high modern contemporary then, provisory ‘Religion’ – classical first steps to science from our view now.
So 3rd, what Jesus really said: don’t stuck in my heels. Leave orthodoxy and go further!
I think there may be an axiom demonstrated here. ‘If the majority think something is so, it is likely to be wrong.’ The majority of the majority don’t think, rather they pick sides on ideological or other reasons. A small minority do think and probably more than two thirds of the whole minority side also just simply picked that side for non scientific reasons (ideological, etc.) . A minority of one, may turn out to be correct but this is very low probability except at the very discovery stage. When, as in climate science, there is no discovery stage but rather a premise that they want to support, this is even more skewed to a majority being wrong.
Even if the methods of Cook on consensus were proper, I would be sceptical, simply because with such a fledgling, complex science, such a high ‘consensus’ is just not possible. An honest figure would be closer to 50-50 on logical grounds, but with the effect of my axiom, a two thirds majority being wrong is about …er… right.
Gary Pearce,
I agree with your axiom (which isn’t original with either you or me; the Madness of Crowds made that case a long time ago).
Good comment anyway. Whenever a large majority ‘knows’ something, it’s likely to be in error. The climate alarmist propagandists know that, of course, but they don’t care. In fact, they use it to their advantage. Obama knows that by simply repeating the ‘carbon’ canard, he will influence the one-quarter or so of the population that still admires and adores him. That’s a lot of ignoratii.
I was having a pleasant conversation with an eye doctor a couple days ago. I mentioned WUWT, and the fact that a lot of well educated folks in the hard sciences wrote articles and comments. She expressed interest, seemingly because ‘science’ fascinated her.
So we delved a little deeper. When I mentioned that CAGW is politics, and that the hard sciences do not support the ‘carbon’ scare, it was like I turned off a light switch. She became cold and distant, and I knew immediately that she was very likely one of Obama’s 25% of the eco-lemming contingent. She was impenetrable to any facts, so I wisely backed off.
The clique pushing carbon taxes knows exactly what they’re doing. If you can get 25% of the population to close ranks and go in one direction, that’s a very powerful force in politics. And that is the problem skeptics have. Education isn’t an overnight thing. It is tedious, and it must be constantly repeated.
Truth will eventually prevail. But there will be enourmous destruction before that happens.
I would like to see the human factor broken down into sub categories of emissions and changes in land use. I am sceptical of the impact of CO2 it being over rated whilst feeling the impact of land use is under rated.
Regional climates began to change when the era of wooden boats and the need for easily accessible timber saw the harvesting of natural forests and the subsequent impact on the biotic pump that carries moisture to inland regions. Now modern society is forever expanding huge heat sinks primarily in coastal areas which are basically deserts as far as mother nature is concerned. Agriculture has recognised the impact old cultivation practices had on local climate and has adopted low till methods whilst ever expanding cities are seemingly ignorant of how local climate is changing.
If one gets 97% confidence he is in line with Stalin, Ceaucescu and Kim Il Sung.
The question ‘would you steal a expensive car’ yields worthless answeres.