THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max,
It looks like you are arguing against a case I haven’t made. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I don’t have a problem with private industry developing an efficient battery, for EVs for instance. Good on them if they can do it. But it does seem curious that you’d be against your Government (Swiss or US? ) giving them any assistance at all, but you don’t have anything to say on the trillions of dollars governments worldwide annually dish out to private industry by way of military spending. The amount of money that could make a significant difference to the example I’ve given is trivial by comparison.
What I’m actually arguing is, as if I really needed to explain, that it is irresponsible to suggest that the world does not face serious problems both environmentally and in energy security. There does seem to be a sizable minority who have some philosophical objection, regardless of what the science says, to the idea that atmospheric CO2 levels or that reducing oil stocks, may be a cause for concern. The first step to solving any problem is to recognise that there is one , and that the two problems have solutions with a large degree of commonality, but you guys just keep coming up with one denialist argument after another.
It really doesn’t matter if they are solved mainly by the private sector or mainly by government, but I’d say a combination of both is essential
What percentage of oil would you say is produced from unconventional sources at present? The environmental problems they seem to be running up against in Canada are horrific. Its even been suggested that ‘controlled nuclear explosions’ would be an efficient way of melting the thick oil to separate it from the shale in which it is embedded. Even if some of these problems are solved its quite unrealistic to suggest that oil production from these sources will be enough to prevent an imminent peak in oil supplies
JZSmith,
You’ve made an interesting point about the state of the US car industry. Correct me if I’m wrong but, at least since the sixties, US manufacturers have built different cars for their home market to their export market. You just need to look at old films to see the different cars Europeans and Americans were driving at the time.
European and Japanese manufactured cars have always, and in general, been more fuel efficient, largely because the price of fuel in those countries has never been a factor to be ignored. So, naturally, when fuel efficiency of vehicles suddenly becomes a key specification, they gain an overwhelming advantage over US manufacturers.
The US car manufacturing industry does seem to be in a parlous state. You’ve asked whose fault it was. Consumers for wanting SUVs? The manufacturers for making them? Maybe a bit of both, I’d say. But, there is another factor to be considered, and you’ve not questioned whether the US government should have allowed their home market for motor vehicles to be so much out of line with the wider world market.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “There does seem to be a sizable minority who have some philosophical objection, regardless of what the science says, to the idea that atmospheric CO2 levels or that reducing oil stocks, may be a cause for concern.”
Yeah. As Brute showed us the “sizable minority” in the USA is around 67%, in Switzerland it’s around 60%, according to Robin it was well over 50% in the UK, and in China (with 1.3 billion) it’s probably close to 100%.
I’d call that a real BIG “sizeable minority”.
The objection, Peter, is not “philosophical”, at least not on my part.
As a rational skeptic of any scientific claim that has become “fashionable” or “politically correct”, and is about to be used by politicians and bureaucrats to take away some of my hard earned money in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will make some wealthy people even richer at everyone else’s expense, I question “what the science says” (as you put it).
I do this because I see that there is ample evidence that the “feedbacks” being programmed in by “the science” are exaggerated and, in some cases, even basically incorrect, resulting in an apparent threat of 3C warming from 2xCO2 (around 1.8C warming from today to 2100), when the real warming to be expected from CO2 is only a fraction of 1C, and therefore irrelevant. And it is not only irrelevant, but it certainly is not worth me spending any of my money to help “mitigate” against.
To your, “It really doesn’t matter if they are solved mainly by the private sector or mainly by government, but I’d say a combination of both is essential.” I can only reply that it matters very much. The private sector is much more efficient at solving problems than the public sector, especially if one includes the UN, who has a horrible record on handling large sums of money. And, more important, the private sector will only go after problems that have a practical and economic solution (and therefore bring a benefit), such as developing new, non-fossil fuel-based energy sources, plus all the other stuff I mentioned earlier, while the public sector may fall into the political trap of trying to “mitigate” against CO2 emissions by “forcing” industry to lower these by imposing carbon taxes (a total waste of money, as Bjorn Lomborg has shown).
Please don’t cite the “Manhattan Project” or “Landing a Man on the Moon” as examples to prove that government needs to “step in”. By stepping in would you mean to implement global CO2 reduction by “forcing industry to pay for the carbon they emit”, which they will pass on to their end use customers, the consumer (= you and me)?
Unlike the AGW threat from CO2, the Manhattan or Moon projects were REAL solutions to REAL problems/opportunities.
That’s the basic difference here, Peter.
To your thoughts on “peak oil”, I know there are many opinions out there. I just cited one (with the link) that makes a very good case that the “peak oil crisis” is not a “crisis” at all. It is an “opportunity”.
I think the underlying difference between you and me may really be “philosophical”. I am an “optimist”. You are a “pessimist”. (Of course, we both claim we are “realists”.)
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I didn’t ask “whose fault is was” regarding the US auto industry, as I don’t think it was anybody’s “fault”. It happens. The risk for automakers is that they build too many of a certain vehicle, based on what they think the market wants. However, unforeseen circumstances in the global energy market rendered rapid market changes, too rapid for the auto makers to react in time to avoid heavy losses as large vehicles became less desirable.
The market is a fickle thing that can change in the blink of an eye. MFG, unfortunately cannot, despite the latest “lean” manufacturing techniques.
I favor some regulation, but only for things widely recognized as a benefit to society but which would not normally be driven by market forces.
Note to JZSmith
Thanks for your comment.
Yeah. Looks like we are pretty much on the same wavelength and Peter is on a totally different one. But the discussion is interesting as it reveals a lot about the other person’s ideas, fears, hopes, beliefs, etc.
One thing that most people in tiny Switzerland will agree with those in the USA is that individual freedom is very important. It is a core value that is engrained based on several hundred years of history, being surrounded by larger powers and refusing to become their “vassals”. The Swiss people govern their country from the bottom up. They rejected EU membership even though the business interests and the federal government itself tried to convince them to vote for joining. They didn’t join the UN until quite recently for the same reason.
There are forces that try to increase the power of the central government, to “equalize” taxes between rich and poor cantons, etc., usually from the “leftist” parties (socialists and greens), but the people have opposed most of these attempts so far. The “leftists” often predict that they will eventually prevail, since many “idealistic” young people support them, and this group will grow as new voters come of age. Problem is that when these people get older, when they have worked for several years, they become more conservative and protective of their individual rights, rather than their obligation to support the proposed “common good” (this excludes “self defense”, which is a federal function, and supported by the people).
I believe you have a similar process in the USA.
But the size difference and the importance and influence on the world stage makes the practicality of a totally decentralized approach much more difficult for you.
You are the United States, whereas Switzerland is the Swiss Confederation. A subtle, but import, difference.
Regards,
Max
I think that you guys are making the mistake of assuming that the opinion polls are designed to find out what people think.
In fact they are often designed to justify a certain line of policy. The trick is to ask a series of questions , but ignore all but the last:
For instance if you guys were designing the poll you might ask:
1) Are you worried about increasing government taxation?
2) Who do you think is better placed to decide how your money should be spent. You or the government?
3) How much trust do you have in politicians, political parties and governments? A lot, a little or none?
4) To reduce carbon dioxide emissions would you support some government intervention by way of a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme?
Whereas I might prefer:
1) Are you worried about the health effects of living in a polluted environment?
2) Are you concerned that the IPCC , a leading international body who have consulted thousands of experts on the world climate, have recently published a report outlining the dangers of carbon emissions to the world’s climate?
3) Are you concerned that many experts have warned that carbon emissions could cause the Arctic ice could dispppear within twenty years leading to the extinction of the polar bear?
4)To reduce carbon dioxide emissions would you support some government intervention by way of a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme?
Max, Just a quick comment on the private v public sector question.
How far would you go to remove government from the transport sector for instance.
If I asked you about rail lines, I’m sure that you’d want them to be owned by the railroad company.
But, would you have want all roads and bridges privatised, too?
The government could sell off all the roads and streets in the US to a private consortium of companies.
I’m sure the technology exists these days for a computerised GPS tracker to record which roads and bridges you’ve used and bill you on a monthly basis. They’d even be able to record where and when you’ve parked and conveniently add on any fees and charges. There would be less need for traffic cops. Every time you exceeded the speed limit your fine would be conveniently added to your monthly bill. Is that really what you want?
At least when the roads are in public ownership you do have some say in how they operate through the democratic system, imperfect though that might be.
I’ve been quiet for a while because I felt this thread was drifting off topic. But I cannot let Peter get away with his curious ideas about how opinion polling works – I know a little about this as I was founding chairman of an online polling company. It’s exceptionally rare for a “poll” to be used in an attempt to justify a policy position: such a poll is unlikely to be taken seriously and anyone running such polls would lose credibility. Contrary to Peter’s comment the only purpose of an opinion poll should be to determine what people think. He’s right, however, that the key to such polling is in the phrasing of the questionnaires – as well, of course, as ensuring that the sample is of an adequate size, has correct demographic balance and is properly representative of the population whose opinion is sought. Writing questionnaires requires skill. A few rules by way of example: questions should be unambiguous and easy to understand, they should be short, they should not assume any prior knowledge or belief on the part of the respondent, they should not point the respondent towards a particular conclusion, they should not assert any “facts” that might be at all controversial and should must not be on the lines of “if so-and-so is the case, then do you think …?” Unfortunately, not all polls achieve this.
For a real life example (breaking some of these rules) see this discussion elsewhere on Tony’s blog. The poll concerned is precisely relevant as it’s about “green” taxes. The questionnaire was poorly drafted (see comments) but, nonetheless, the results were instructive – and misinterpreted by the Guardian.
JZSmith 1072 wrote in part:
Yes, it’s undeniable that the World would be a very different and probably much worse place without the great power of America. However, I think it would be EVEN BETTER if your country had a few more controls. ONE of the problems of a do-what-you-like-regardless market is that it can create some spectacular bubble bursts. (and BTW, some bad socio-economic problems) For instance, I think you will agree that it is a pity for the World that there were not a few controls to limit that sub-prime mortgage eventuality. If for example you owned a house in Detroit, and like others there that drive a car, do so very courteously in order to reduce the risk of being shot-at in road rage, then you might wonder on the managerial competence of industry and government.
An example I give for good government controls is that mandatory seat belt usage in cars was the norm in most of the developed world, long long ago, and this has saved many thousands of lives and ghastly injuries. (also a benefit to their national economies). In the 80’s, (?) U.S. administrators sought to catch-up with the ROTW and overcome public insistence on freedom of choice NOT to wear seat belts by mandating the fitment of passive restraint systems. These were not only less effective than conventional belts, but very much more expensive and a real nuisance.
Another shocker, was the use of red rear turn-signal lamps, simply because U.S. car STYLISTS preferred them for appearance, no matter that the ROTW used amber because they were a lot safer than red
But anyway, the real intent behind my post was to give my opinion that oil companies have a tough job on their hands to figure-out what to do, and I suspect that it will be a long time before they do anything radical. Oil executives are probably just as incompetent as those in other industries. They will probably simply continue to drill for oil wherever they are able until there may be no alternative.
Oh, BTW, great though your country is, and we love you, I’m very glad that mine does not have some of the “freedoms” that you have.
I like for instance today’s stern headline in “The Age” (Melbourne newspaper):
RBA’s warning to Banks:
‘The Reserve Bank has challenged Australia’s Banks to pass on in full the coming cut in official interest rates. Whilst this is not government as such, both government and various authorities are …..nope, I’d better stop there
Pete,
Polar Bears are extremely dangerous predators. They kill people; especially oil rig workers. The fewer the better.
Bob,
What the hell happened to you? Did you start taking Liberal pills?
Brute,
“Polar Bears are extremely dangerous predators. They kill people; especially oil rig workers.”
Yes I know. But their cubs are so cute. You contrarians may have big oil and big coal on your side but you haven’t got Knut!
You’ve got something else wrong, Peter. This is from my 21 April post on the NS thread:
Further my 1084,
Sorry, but for my:
They will probably simply continue to drill for oil wherever they are able until there may be no alternative
Please ADD: …but to go for something more radical, such as shale oil, or ultra deep drilling, depending on cost benefit considerations or any new technologies that may come along at that future time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also when I wrote:
…nope, I’d better stop there.
I agree with Robin that we seem to be rambling off-topic. Initially, I was really having a bit of FUN, but it is easy for such stuff to get out of control, and irrelevant to what this thread should be about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Horror of horrors, I was even tempted to support just one thing that Pete said! (Concerning do what the hell you like in the U.S. market, regardless, without government guidance)
Brute 1085, wrote TO me [Bob]
Nope, I have not been taking any new medication!
Please accept that whilst you are right to be proud of your mighty nation and the influence it has on the world, it is not perfection. There cannot be perfection in any nation, and when you talk of your nation making a democratic choice for Dubbya, what was the margin again? And those voting machines? And that court decision first time around? And when you say democracy, isn’t it all about multi-millionaire candidates that get the most funding? (and all sorts of stuff that frankly, I don’t understand) I once watched a programme that attempted to explain the American system of “electoral democracy“; all this primaries stuff, electoral college or whatever it is, and I still have no clue. I reckon I’d have a better chance of explaining the game of cricket to you! (Although to be quite honest I don’t get baseball either…. How do you guys get excited about that crap?)
(OOOHHHHH! And as for American football, that is is is…….. As the English say: “not a very good game“)
Hey Brute, don’t get upset, I’m just teasing you.
(And I hope TonyN won’t banish me!)
Some housecleaning:
Robin: You’re right, we’ve gotten off-topic, and after this post I’ll be back on again. (Sorry Tony!)
Bob_FJ: We do have some controls, and if Obama gets elected we’ll have even more. However, you have to be careful what you wish for. In the sub-prime mortgage mess, it was the meddling of government that was a very large contributor to the severity of the mess. For many years banks and mortgage underwriters wouldn’t write mortgages in the sub-prime market because of risk. However the Congress enacted several laws that laid the groundwork for the fall. One was a requirement for banks to make loans in poorer communities that they wouldn’t have done before based solely on a credit report. When Wall Street found a way to protect these bankers by packaging up these sub-prime mortgages and selling them off as securities, the problem grew and eventually exploded. Had the regulators lest things alone we would likely not have had the situation we have now.
Peter: We have roads you describe right now here in the States. Toll roads here in southern California were built (in record time) using private funding, then the builders charge a toll to use them. They have electronic devices that frequent users can get that the put on their car and as they drive on the toll road a reading device records their passing and automatically charges their account.
Tony, I promise future postings from me shall be climate-related! Sorry.
This is scary and almost unbelievable. This type of hysteria is the kind of thing I fear the most from the AGW crowd. As I have feared and unfortunately expected, AGW is and will be used to try to stop everything that the greenies don’t like.
Please let sanity win over the kooks.
Hi Peter,
As a diversion, I’ll play your “poll game”.
Since it is at least partly related to climate topics, I’m sure Tony will not object.
Maybe we can get Robin, Bob_FJ, Brute, JZSmith and others (David B. Benson, where art thou?) to also play along.
I will give the standard “yes/no” answer and then elaborate briefly on my reasoning.
1)Are you worried about the health effects of living in a polluted environment?
NO.
(I do not live in a polluted environment. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural trace component of our atmosphere that is essential for all life. I am confident that real air pollutants are being controlled by the environmental government agencies responsible for this in my country (Switzerland) and in neighboring countries, so I really do not have much to fear.
2)Are you concerned that the IPCC, a leading international body who have consulted thousands of experts on the world climate, have recently published a report outlining the dangers of carbon emissions to the world’s climate?
NO.
(I am aware that the IPCC was formed by the UN, a political body, in order to evaluate the impact of human emissions, primarily CO2, on Earth’s climate. IPCC is, by definition, an international political body, and, as such, its reports can be seen as political reports. It’s very existence depends on finding “dangers of carbon emissions to the world’s climate”. No “dangers” = no IPCC. The conclusions of its reports are, therefore, based on agenda-driven “climate science” that has been skewed to give alarming projections for the future concerning “the dangers of carbon emissions to the world’s climate”. I do not take these reports too seriously, because I not only see their political nature, but upon checking more closely I also see how flawed the bases are for the projections in these report.)
3)Are you concerned that many experts have warned that carbon emissions could cause the Arctic ice could disappear within twenty years leading to the extinction of the polar bear?
NO.
(I am fully aware that these reports are total nonsense. Polar bears populations have increased in number over the past decades and polar bears have survived longer periods of warmer temperature, where there was significantly less Arctic ice than today.
4) To reduce carbon dioxide emissions would you support some government intervention by way of a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme?
NO.
(I am of the opinion that this is a political power grab. A carbon tax, as proposed, would cost the citizens of the world, including me, enormous sums of money and achieve absolutely nothing. It would give bureaucrats and politicians obscene amounts of taxpayer money to shuffle around and, based on the UN past record on handling large sums of money, would open a Pandora’s Box of corruption and graft. Other than that, it would achieve nothing.)
That’s my poll result. Let’s see how the other respondents do.
Will get back to your “public/private” question later.
Regards,
Max
Further to my post 1083, I’ve drafted a GW questionnaire. Respondents would be able to choose only one option for each question.
This may give some idea of how difficult it is to draft a professional survey – and particularly to ensure it is properly objective. And, as no one has checked it (as would happen for a “real” survey), it may contain errors. It could, of course, go on to determine what specific action(s) would be desirable/acceptable (e.g. “green” taxes) to those who thought government or personal action was needed.
Hi Peter,
Just a quick comment on the private vs. public sector questions you asked. It is starting to move a bit away from climate issues, but I hope Tony will not object to my reply (since he allowed your questions).
Q: “How far would you go to remove government from the transport sector for instance.
If I asked you about rail lines, I’m sure that you’d want them to be owned by the railroad company.”
Guess you’re wrong on that one, Peter. Switzerland has a good railroad system, both for public transportation and for freight. It is (to a major extent) owned by the federal government. It is currently being overhauled (as approved by, and being paid by, the Swiss voters). Switzerland is fortunate to be a small, densely populated country with major hydroelectric power resources, so this works well. Whether it would work as well in larger, less densely populated countries, such as Australia or the USA, is another question. I’m sure there are densely populated regions within both countries where it could work. Let the voters there decide how they want to handle this.
Q: “But, would you have want all roads and bridges privatised, too?
The government could sell off all the roads and streets in the US to a private consortium of companies.”
No, Peter. This is a hare-brained idea for either the USA or Switzerland as far as I am concerned. But again, I’d say “leave it up to the voters to decide”. Privately owned toll motorways work well in France, but I prefer the freeway system of Switzerland (or the USA). One of the least traveled French (toll) “autoroutes” is the one that runs in a southwest direction northwest of the Swiss border from Mulhouse (until you get into the traffic of greater Lyon), because most drivers prefer to take the parallel free motorway on the Swiss side of the border (where they can also fill their tank with lower-taxed gasoline along the way).
Q: “I’m sure the technology exists these days for a computerised GPS tracker to record which roads and bridges you’ve used and bill you on a monthly basis. They’d even be able to record where and when you’ve parked and conveniently add on any fees and charges. There would be less need for traffic cops. Every time you exceeded the speed limit your fine would be conveniently added to your monthly bill. Is that really what you want?”
No. I wouldn’t want this sort of a system whether it was privately or publicly owned.
Q: “At least when the roads are in public ownership you do have some say in how they operate through the democratic system, imperfect though that might be.”
Yes. Looks like you’re starting to get my point. Let the voters decide what they want, rather than having “big brother” decide what is best for the “common good”. That’s what democracy is all about.
Regards,
Max
Max: re the “poll game” (your post 1093). The trouble is that Peter’s questionnaire breaks all the requirements (and more) that I identified in my post 1083. But, for what it’s worth, I agree with all your answers (i.e. all “NO”) and, essentially, all your comments. A professional poll adequately covering Peter’s questions (unravelling its assumptions and ambiguities and eliminating its attempts to “educate” the respondent before he/she responds) would run to several pages – and most respondents would give up long before it was completed. My post 1093 shows (I trust) just how hard it is to deal correctly with even a few “simple” questions. Comments on 1093 welcome – including perhaps an indication of how others might answer it.
Hi Robin,
Your survey (1093) is a bit more comprehensive than Peter’s (to which I have already responded). Let’s give it a go (I’ll add a quick comment explaining my reasoning after each answer):
Q1 Do you think the world’s temperature has increased over the course of the twentieth century?
Yes.
(That’s what the thermometers say. They also tell us that the trend has stopped, or even reversed in the 21st century.)
Q2 Which of the following is closest to your view of the cause of twentieth century global warming?
Mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions may have contributed to it.
(The theory is plausible, a correlation exists for part of the record, from 1976-1998, or 2000, although other parts of the record do not show a very good correlation: 1910-1944 with major warming and very little CO2 increase, 1944-1976 with cooling despite growing CO2 increase, 2001 to today with slight cooling despite record CO2 increase.)
Q3 Which of the following is closest to your view of the likely effects of global warming?
It will not cause any problems.
(The amount of warming we might experience until 2100 as a result of human CO2 emissions is likely to be less than 1°C, approximately in the same order of magnitude as the amount of warming we experienced in the past century. There is no evidence that this warming has caused or will cause any problems; it might even have a slight beneficial effect on crop growth.)
Q4 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of the priority lists of world governments?
No – I don’t think government action is necessary.
(Incidentally, I also agree with the next choice, “I don’t think government action would make any practical difference”. As there is no problem, I do not believe we need a solution.)
Q5 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of your personal priority list?
No – I don’t think personal action is necessary.
(Again, I also agree with the next choice “I don’t think personal action would make any practical difference”. No problem = no personal action necessary.)
Robin, I realize that you are more experienced in this than I am, and that you are also better with the English language, but I would think about the last two questions, where a choice is given to select between: “I don’t think … action is necessary” and “I don’t think … action would make any practical difference”.
I would suppose that most people who think action will not make any practical difference will also agree that it is not necessary. Yet they are forced to arbitrarily choose one or the other answer, thereby diluting the poll result.
Let’s say, for example, that 65% of all respondents agree that “action is not necessary” and also that “action will not make any difference”.
By splitting this into two different answers you could get a result that 32% of respondents agree that “action is not necessary” (while they might not agree, since they did not state so, that “action would not make any practical difference”) and 33% that agree that “action would not make any practical difference” (while they might not agree, since they did not state so, that “action would make any practical difference”).
In other words the result would read: “32% of all respondents answered that they did not think … action was necessary, and 33% of all respondents answered that they did not think … action would make any difference, whereas in fact 65% of all respondents believed that action was not necessary and would not make any difference.
Sorry for beating this dog to death, but you get my point.
Regards,
Maz
Your point is a good one, Max (post 1096) – and I hesitated over it. Perhaps you’re right. When I drafted this, it seemed to me that there might be some respondents who were not quite sure whether or not personal action was theoretically necessary but were quite sure it would make no difference – or even vice versa. But that’s probably a weak point, and I might more usefully have combined them into one question; and perhaps that’s what I would have been advised to do by a colleague had this been a real survey. (In practice, there’s quite often a vigorous debate about the phrasing of questionnaires before they are issued.) The fact that my approach splits your 65% into two is IMHO unimportant as it would still be clear that 65% supported either one or the other – that would hardly be a dilution, just a little more refinement. Take Q4 as another (better) example and suppose that 3% had selected the first “Yes” and 47% the second – it would be correct to report that 50% of respondents agreed that AGW reduction should be at or near the top of governments’ priority lists. However, only only a small minority thought AGW the most important issue facing mankind today. Nonetheless that useful fact would have been established for those wishing for a more comprehensive picture.
All this serves to illustrate just how difficult it is to draft what at first sight is a very simple survey (I suggest the questions themselves are arguably less comprehensive than Peter’s); the challenge is to try to ensure that all respondents feel they have been given an opportunity to express their true opinion. That’s the reason for usually including a “don’t know” option and why I included an “other” (there would be a text box for a full explanation) in Q2 – to accommodate, for example, anyone who thought man was responsible but not because of GHG emissions.
It’s by taking great care over such things that you get accurate, reliable surveys.
Peter: Max agrees that the world’s temperature has increased over the course of the twentieth century and that mankind’s GHG emissions may have contributed to that increase. In other words, his view appears to be identical to that of the IPCC scientists to whom I referred in posts 528 and 862 and whom you agreed were part of “mainstream science”. So do you still rate Max as a climate change denier? And, if you do, are those IPCC scientists also climate change deniers?
Robin,
Max may have cringed a little when he read your line that his views are “identical to the IPCC scientists”. He’s clearly indicated his comtempt for the IPCC and yes, and unlike the IPCC scientists, he is a denier or sceptic or whatever term you’d like to use.
Though I must say I was a little concerned ( or hopeful?) about Max a few postings ago when he appeared to be suggesting that CO2 emissions may have to be at least kept constant for the next 167 years. That would be enough to get him into serious trouble with some of the more hardened sceptics on the net!
PS I wasn’t meaning the King with wet feet. Just type ‘Knut’ into Google!
Re: Post #1081
1) Are you worried about the health effects of living in a polluted environment?
A. Yes
2) Are you concerned that the IPCC , a leading international body who have consulted thousands of experts on the world climate, have recently published a report outlining the dangers of carbon emissions to the world