JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Newspoll fails basic test of English: produces nonsense survey

The latest Newspoll test on climate gives out almost no useful information on what Australians think about carbon emissions, but definitively shows that Newspoll survey designers didn’t think too hard about the questions. Indeed the survey is so meaningless that sometimes sceptics and unskeptics would have to both tick the same boxes. Could this be a survey-bot at work?

THINKING NOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING?

Isn’t the aim of polling to get answers that are not ambiguous?

Does “Climate Change” mean: a/ that the climate changes, or b/ that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the atmosphere?

I would have to tick YES for this question. Yes, I do think that ice-ages occur and warm periods do too, and that there is no static perfect temperature for the Earth, and that currently there is no reason to believe that the forces that have changed our climate for 4.5 billion years have suddenly, for the first time, reached a fixed unchanging stasis.

Presumably the 22% of people who ticked : “Not believe” were using definition ‘b’ above, and not the literal definition ‘a’. Instead of information about public attitudes to man made global warming, Newspoll may have shown that 73% of people read literally, and 22% interpret questions in light of current “fashions” in Orwellian gobblespeak. But then again, maybe not. What if the 22% can read literally, but chose to send a message to politicians by ignoring the literal meaning. Who can tell? Not Newspoll.

Normally Newspoll is one of the most rigorous of surveying organizations in Australia — but this time they have fallen for the shifty reframing tricks of the Scare Campaign Team.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s time to rescue the English language and we can start by writing to Newspoll (and other polling equivalents overseas) and suggest that they frame their questions with unambiguous words, instead of vague Newspeak.

How can a nation have a national debate when we can’t even agree on the words to discuss a particular phenomenon?

How much more useful would that question have been if it asked:

THINKING NOW ABOUT Earth’s Climate. DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT man made emissions are the main cause of recent global warming?

Lets add those results up again

Then there’s this o-so-sloppy shorthand which produces headlines that give conclusions that are nothing like what the survey actually showed (watch the “maths” in the results):

Question: DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS…?*

Results: ENTIRELY CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY + PARTLY CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY

= “TOTAL CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY” (94% of people believe this!)

Hmmm. Let’s think about that phrasing: “Entirely caused” plus “partly caused” does not equal “Total caused by human activity”, it equals “Total who think humans have some non-zero effect on the climate”. Yes, I fit that bill again! Presumably Andy Pitman, Will Steffen, Dr Glickson, James Hansen, Phil Jones and possibly even Al Gore would all give the same answer too.

When Newspoll designs a survey with questions so loaded that gets the same answers from outright opponents you know you might as well draw straws from a hat. It would be cheaper and it wouldn’t contribute to national-illiteracy.

Let’s contact Newspoll and suggest they avoid the term “Climate Change” (unless they are really asking whether people believe that the stories of ice ages were faked). The forces of corruption and waste win when language is misused.

The inanity IS the point.

Good policy starts with good English.

Sydney

Melbourne

Canberra

PS: Perhaps people overseas can name agencies (eg Rassmussen, Morgan) who have also used the phrase “Climate Change” in their survey-bots. They could use a little prod about literal English.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Newspoll fails basic test of English: produces nonsense survey, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/28a6ool

59 comments to Newspoll fails basic test of English: produces nonsense survey

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    From a scientific perspective there is no doubt that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the atmosphere. Whether that affect is catastrophic or is attenuated by the checks and balances within the climate system is the issue.

    00

  • #

    I’d be interested in the timeline between this survey, and the bullying of The Australians editor. newspoll is commissioned by the Australian.

    Mending fences?

    00

  • #
    matthu

    “DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE …” is badly phrased anyway.

    It is like asking “Would you like your coffee with milk or without?”

    Grammatically correct answer: “Yes please”

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: # 2

    … newspoll is commissioned by the Australian.

    Well, there you go …

    In my (admittedly limited) experience of dealing with survey companies, the designers always check the questions with the client before mounting the poll. I have never seen the questions changed, but presumably they could be, “following discussions”.

    Given the atrocious wording of these questions, by a supposedly professional company, I suspect that is what has happened.

    So if people are going to contact Newspoll, I suggest you also copy the Australian, both for publication in Letters to the Editor, and directly to their corporate offices.

    That should poke a stick in the termites nest quite nicely.

    p.s. In the font on my browser, “Newspoll” looks awfully like “Newspoil” – quite appropriate, given the circumstances.

    00

  • #
    Mike S.

    Baa Humbug #2:

    I’d be interested in the timeline between this survey, and the bullying of The Australians editor. newspoll is commissioned by the Australian.

    Well, the poll results PDF says it was conducted from December 3-5, 2010. From various articles and whatnot, the attacks on the Australian appear to have started quite some time before that.

    00

  • #
    TimG

    Joann,

    To eliminate bias caused by the question survey often change the wording with different subjects.

    i.e. 50% of people would get the question:

    DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT man made emissions are the main cause of recent global warming?

    50% would get the question:

    DO YOU PERSONALLY NOT BELIEVE THAT man made emissions are the main cause of recent global warming?

    The results would be presented as a single set.

    The confusion is likely caused by sloppy reporting of the survey question.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I guess when your are a politician or a lobbyist lies, damn lies & statistics are stock in trade.

    I had believed that “climate science” had learned its bad habits of achieving ( & spruiking) pre-determined results from the pollies & the media but as the “science” has been suborned into the pitch it is now clearly a dependent parasitic entity.

    Radical surgery urgently required.

    00

  • #

    An important question is: are words to be used for communication or as weapons.

    If for communcation:
    There is a clear and urgent effort to avoid the possibility of being misunderstood. The purpose is to have the receiver of the words understand exactly what you mean. You may be right, wrong, or confused in your meaning but the meaning can be clearly identified and actually discussed.

    If as weapons:
    The words are formed so as to be misunderstood by as many people in as many different ways as is possible. The purpose is that when challenged, they can choose any one of the “misunderstandings” to be an unquestionable defense against the challenge regardless of the challenge. That way they think they can “win” any argument. Though the actual argument is never addressed in any meaningful way.

    Using words as weapons is the signature behavior of intellectual thugs. They never say what they mean and they never mean what they say. An interpretation of their words is wrong no matter what the interpretation. Their words have only form but no substance. Their meaning is as ephemeral as a shape shifting puff of smoke in a windstorm.

    00

  • #

    Thnx Mike.

    Interesting, for me anyway.

    I’ve taken a passing interest in polls, I find the numbers interesting.

    Looking at the past polls on this subject, one was held in Feb this year. Recall, after Copenhagen, countries had until end of Feb (from memory) to sign up to the accord.

    The 2008 survey was held in July. Jos archives don’t go back that far. Anyone recall anything substantive happening on or about July 2008?

    Just as a sidebar, looks to me like 11% of those who don’t believe in climate change are accountants. They must be, why else would they want a tax if they don’t think CC is happening.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Quote from the Newspoll website:

    Experienced senior researchers manage every project

    You get a consistent point of contact, personal service & someone dedicated to understanding your requirements. Our people are highly experienced and have a broad range of research, business and management skills.

    [My emphasis]

    OK, so the person designing the survey is close to the person commissioning the survey, and over time adopts the same rationale for needing the information. Could this lead to an alignment of preferred outcomes from the survey? Could such an alignment influence the way that questions are posed?

    Then we have a quote from today’s Australian:

    AUSTRALIANS are confused about the level of agreement among climate scientists on global warming, according to a new survey.

    Nearly 40 per cent of respondents think most climate scientists disagree over whether the Earth has warmed in recent years, while more than 34 per cent believe experts disagree that human activities such as burning coal and oil are a major cause of climate change.

    The results come from a nationwide poll of 1200 people older than 18, conducted for the Australian National University by Melbourne’s Social Research Centre. The findings follow yesterday’s Newspoll, which showed that 77 per cent of people believe that climate change is occurring, and 94 per cent of those respondents blame human activity.

    “I think they’re very complementary findings,” said report co-author and social scientist Will Grant with ANU’s Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science.

    [My emphasis]

    So, the two questions that Jo picked up on were the two “money questions” — well done Jo, good spot. And then we get to see who the beneficiary is: the ANU ANCPAS, who are perhaps in need of more grant funding? (Or is that Will Grant funding?)

    But wait, there is more …

    “People believe (in global warming) but a major confusion exists about what’s going on in the science,” he said.

    This is the core lie – once again based on the principle of “belief” – and of course people are confused about the science, especially when the science cannot even get a valid survey put together.

    According to Dr Grant, the complexity touches on other science and policy questions he asked, along with ANU colleagues Rod Lamberts and Aaron Martin.

    Nearly 80 per cent agreed that politicians should rely more on expert scientists and more than 80 per cent agreed that politicians were too easily swayed by media reaction to scientific issues.

    [My emphasis]

    OK, so if we accept that the media understand and reflect the mood of their readers … bare with me here … politicians should ignore the views of the general population, and just go with the scientific dogma? What are these people smoking?

    “I think people are saying that science is portrayed in the media as being a lot more contentious than they believe, said Dr Grant.”

    If this is a direct quote – and since it is in quotation marks, it might just possibly be a direct quotation – it gives a brilliant indication of the clarity of Dr Grant’s thinking.

    These people are teaching the next generation of “Australian intellectuals” … Be afraid — be very afraid.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Lionell Griffith: # 6

    I agree with you Lionell.

    Unfortunately some of us, or perhaps most of us, are so conditioned to experiencing the use of words as weapons, that our ability to use words purely for unambiguous communication atrophies.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Is anyone else having a problem visting http://www.weaselzippers.us? I get a forbidden error when I try.

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    “These surveys were conducted on the telephone by trained interviewers in all states of Australia and in both city and country areas.”

    One can only guess what inflection the “trained interviewers” used to get such a lopsided response — totally caused by human activity. Big win for the MSM propaganda effort and or the results are completely skewed. The first question is absurd.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Thumbnail” (10), Some info on Weaselzippers……

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2638895/posts

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Thanks Wendy, I guess I will have to wait to get my zip fix.

    00

  • #

    Ha! Welcome to the dark world of poll manipulation. The best that I have seen to date was in the last week of Kevin Rudd’s leadership. The Australian (again) thundered in the lead story for the day that “… Galaxy poll shows that Queensland voters turn on Rudd for not introducing an emissions trading scheme ……” (or similar -it has been a while.) I rang Galaxy. What exactly was the poll question? Sorry too much said Galaxy. It was a secret question. I would have to contact the political force that commissioned the poll – the WWF. I rang the WWF. Sorry said the WWF. It was a secret question and their media department would not release the details. (Media Department?). By great good fortune, one of the persons polled turned up on the web. The question asked in the poll, said he, merely asked if he approved of an ETS, then secondly would he approve of such a scheme if it meant no cost to him.

    The point of this little tale is that the WWF has about $20 billion worth of carbon credits to flog if we would just give them a market… Never mind just keep those donations flooding in.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Ah yes, once again agenda loaded questions for a “poll”. If only someone were in a public position to question those questions..

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I thought I would say that I visit JoNova without fail every day. WZ is a blog I visit maybe once or twice a week. They are USA based and not as relevant to the issues here as JN.

    I would ask everyone who comments here and reads JoNova to buy her some chocolate for Christmas, by clicking on the Donate button up the top.

    Merry Christmas JoNova. Both of us frequent your site. Your coverage of the Thompson’s story is first class.

    RB

    00

  • #
    tide

    I am having a more fundamental problem with the question that was posed. Either I believe something or I don’t. Those are mutually exclusive propositions. There is only one logical answer, namely “Yes.”

    It’s like asking whether you believe the coin landed heads up or tails up. Surely, it landed one or the other so I’d have to answer “Yes, it landed heads up or tails up.” The alternative is “No, the coin did not land heads up or tails up.”

    Such a glaring logical faux pas can only be intended to generate mischief. Lewis Carroll would be proud.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo May be considered off thread but it is about “climate change”!

    From http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/cleavage-research-in-cancun/

    “I’ve just got to recommend this article:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/04/rex-murphy-cancun-sun-speeds-decay-of-global-warming-charade/

    It reads tight and clean, end to end. Has “grit” along with truth and humor. Just delicious.

    I’ll quote a couple of lines, but not much as I don’t want to break the ‘flow’ of the actual article when you read it… and a bit out of order, too:

    “The environmentalists and the activists have had a tin ear and a surplus of righteousness from the beginning. But there’s something extravagantly out of key, even for them, in holding their great “Save the Planet” revival at Cancun — up to now famous for Spring Break and as a hangout for louche Hollywood types and cleavage researchers.

    They’re toasting their pasty, righteous, caterwauling epidermi on the golden hot sands of Cancun, Mexico, flopped out amid the bikinis and barbeques while they attempt to spell out a future of rationing and want for all the rest of us. Flown there on taxpayer or foundation money, meeting up with all their buddies from the bust that was Cophenhagen, the grim, grey priesthood of “sustainable” living are convening in one of the great sybaritic strips of the entire Western world. The monks are in the cathouse.”

    But hey, if you’re going to do Armageddon — do it in Cancun. The Apocalypse at the All You Can Eat Buffet. Parasailing to Armageddon.

    Cleavage Researchers? Monks are in the Cathouse? Yes, it’s that good! “

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Lionell @ 6

    You hit the nail on the head.

    “If as weapons:
    The words are formed so as to be misunderstood by as many people in as many different ways as is possible. The purpose is that when challenged, they can choose any one of the “misunderstandings” to be an unquestionable defense against the challenge regardless of the challenge. That way they think they can “win” any argument. Though the actual argument is never addressed in any meaningful way.”

    How many voters did the Maiden Aunt delude into believing government’s position, wherever it is might end up, may be alligned to their own?

    The words & ideas were “all important” & of gravitas but nobody could say where their heads were really at:- the art of consummate politics.

    As one of the “well & truly consummated”, I feel violated!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The rule about any poll about “climate change” is to answer in such a way that does not give succour to the alarmists; so, with ambivalent questions such as posed by the Australian poll:

    THINKING NOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING?

    The answer is no; because any other answer legitimises the devious nature of the question and will be construed as support for AGW because it will be used to prop up the insidious consensus argument, which is about all AGW has left.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    First the softening-up question, then the loaded question — it’s a timeworn technique.

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Rereke Whaakaro @9:

    Unfortunately some of us, or perhaps most of us, are so conditioned to experiencing the use of words as weapons, that our ability to use words purely for unambiguous communication atrophies.

    Learning how to communicate clearly and actually doing it is hard work. Even for those of us not so atrophied. However, one’s survival depends upon doing it for one’s self if for no other reason.

    It starts with being clear and unambiguous with respect to ones ideas, concepts, and definitions. It continues with the ideas, concepts, and definitions being objectively referenced rather than subjectively referenced. It is a life long effort. It is never easy but it gets easier with time and experience.

    Say what you mean and mean what you say: always! For if you don’t, the most important person you will fool is yourself.

    00

  • #
    treeman

    I suggest the pollsters are themselves already convinced that the science is settled and the wording of the survey takes this into account. With the same wording and a poll taken from a group who have read Slaying the Sky Dragon I guarantee the result would be vastly different.

    “Global warming is …an extreme example of the current moral and intellectual vacuum. Most people incorrectly believe it is a change in climate due to human interferance and confuse it with the Greenhouse Effect. They also believe both are a new phenomena that are the result of impacts of the industrialised world” Dr Tim Ball, co-author

    Oh what a difference an educated readership will make!

    00

  • #
    Binny

    One of the marketing successes of the AWG crowd.
    Has being too thoroughly blur the line between climate change and man-made climate change.
    So that the average casual uninformed observer doesn’t differentiate between the two.

    Consequently in the past we have had the result whereby any proof that the climate was changing became de facto proof that it was being caused by human activity.
    The challenge for the sceptics has always been to raise awareness of this.

    The problem is these people have absolutely no shame.
    My youngest daughter now in year six. It is being told that the abundance of rain on the eastern seaboard is being caused by human pollution.
    So they have smoothly transitioned from a lack of rain being caused by human activity, to an abundance of rain being caused by human activity, without so much as the blink of an eye.

    The incredible part is that her teachers. People that I would not hesitate to described as being of high integrity, are swallowing this rubbish without question And passing it on to their impressionable students.

    00

  • #

    Binny @ 23
    My youngest daughter now in year six. It is being told that the abundance of rain on the eastern seaboard is being caused by human pollution.
    So they have smoothly transitioned from a lack of rain being caused by human activity, to an abundance of rain being caused by human activity, without so much as the blink of an eye.

    Just like the scene in 1984, when the enemies change in the middle of a speech!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    pattoh 18,

    As one of the “well & truly consummated”, I feel violated!

    Me too! And I’m not even Australian.

    It’s far too easy to manipulate both the questions and who you ask them to so you get the result wanted by whoever commissioned the poll. As Election Day comes closer the pollsters come out of the woodwork. And in a close race it’s not uncommon that a Republican poll shows the Republican candidate ahead while a Democrat poll shows the Democrat candidate ahead. Go figure!

    Newspoll sounds like maybe a case of incompetence!? But how could you tell the difference? Unfortunately people are influenced when instead they ought to just blow off the poll as untrustworthy.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The survey was obviously designed as it is so that sceptical and non-sceptical alike would respond in such a way to promote the pre-determined “results” of the survey – “majority of the populace agrees that Government ought to be doing something about industrial emissions.”

    Pretty cute response there, Colin @1, now show us all your evidence for your assertions.

    Sounds very much to me like the assertion for the existence of N-rays:

    “N-rays exist and are emanated by some objects, it just so happens, that other objects interfere with the direct observation of N-rays.”

    From a phenomenological standpoint, this is entirely equivalent to saying “N-rays do not exist.”

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Ban Ki is banging on about the climate, published at The Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/global-climate-change-action-insufficient-ban-ki-moon-warns-cancun-conference/story-e6frg6so-1225967438001

    Meanwhile all eyes are focused on the FOI case of the century with Assange now behind bars in the UK refused bail.

    The authorities cannot stop the signal… it is out now. The more the authorities struggle to contain it the more people will find the urge to leak from within. You cannot fight the desire to out the truth.

    The current generation expects transparency… heck they put their lives out on the net through facebook, twitter etc for all to see. Politicians are finding it a tad difficult to adjust to the new information age paradigm. Poor snookums…

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Poll on a Carbon Tax…….

    http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44

    Question: Do you want your federal M.P. to vote in favour of a carbon tax?

    Results:

    yes 1.3% 274
    NO 98.7% 21,091

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    That’s why you need to ask the question correctly, Wendy, to get the result you want:

    “Are you in favour of investment in the Country’s future, and elimination of dependence upon foreign petroleum imports?”

    Yes => favours carbon tax

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Wendy@28: Wow, who would have thought that 1.3% of 2GB listeners (bless their cotton socks) would want a carbon tax! Based on that, I’d say that the figure is probably 60% among normal Australians.

    But seriously, the question:

    DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING?

    could imply “an unusual amount of climate change”, or perhaps “the warming we’ve been hearing about non-stop for the last 20 years”. Either way, only a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic could interpret it to mean “that the earth’s climate ever has or ever will, change”.

    But Jo, I do agree with you about the second part to the question. Clearly it should ask whether you think the warming is man-made, and whether it will be a big problem. Obviously pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere will change the climate, and the disagreement is on how big a problem (or benefit, if you want to be perverse) it is.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Just had a quick look at the survey… it is complete garbage. Either it was incredibly badly designed or it was designed to achieve certain responses. I can think of no better example than the following sketch (yes, I know … I post this one a lot, but it is priceless and perfectly illustrates the point):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U

    I rest my case.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    [Snip... c'mon... John is a real person. Better to point out that the flaws in his arguments --JN]

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #30
    December 8th, 2010 at 11:56

    Yes I agree fully with you John regards the 2GB survey, they might as well have just announced Alan Joneses opinion.

    But seriously, the question:

    DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING?

    could imply “an unusual amount of climate change”, or perhaps “the warming we’ve been hearing about non-stop for the last 20 years”. Either way, only a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic could interpret it to mean “that the earth’s climate ever has or ever will, change”.

    This is the nub of this thread. If a poll wants accurate responses, the questions must be explicit. Implying merely introduces noise. Polsters know this.

    the disagreement is on how big a problem (or benefit, if you want to be perverse) it is.

    Why perverse? It is entirely reasonable and plausible to consider any benefits that warming will bring. it’s not a zero sum game.
    Just because the IPCC lists next to no benefits of warming (the only one I found was a benefit for wine growing. Must be the favourite drink over at the CRU) doesn’t mean there are none.

    If we wish to make good policy, we need to be fully informed without prejudice or bias and weigh up the costs and benefits. Wouldn’t you agree?

    p.s. John I’m having difficulty getting you to engage me, you’ve yet to reply to my last few comments directed at you.
    Have I said something to upset you sweetheart?

    00

  • #
    wendy

    IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    Pachauri admits the IPCC just guesses the numbers……..

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/pachauri-admits-the-ipcc-just-guesses-the-numbers/

    00

  • #

    Wendy that’s not nice nor called for.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Do you support Kevin Rudd’s ETS proposal?

    http://post.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quizresults.php?poll_id=51862&wv=1

    Do you support the measures expected to be in Julia Gillard’s climate change policy?

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/warming-up-to-a-new-climate-plan/story-e6freuzr-1225889579709

    What do you think of Julia Gillard’s ‘consensus-building’ approach to emissions-trading policy?

    http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-election/climate-policy-citizens-assembly/20100723-10nea.html

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Obviously pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere will change the climate, and the disagreement is on how big a problem (or benefit, if you want to be perverse) it is.

    The oceans have been doing hat since they existed, you chuckle head, in response to climate change and the disagreement is, how perverse your logic will get

    00

  • #
    CameronC

    They have obviously been paid off by “Big Renewable Energy”

    00

  • #

    I think you blew the first question. The correct answer to this question:

    THINKING NOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING?

    Is NOOOO!!!!

    Belief should not enter into the equation if you are a sceptic. Only facts figures and the strength of an argument should be considered. Not belief. Not religious arguments.

    Ok. Just yanking your chain. :-) I take your point.

    00

  • #
    pat

    binny -

    there’s the rub. teachers are spreading this garbage to students.

    as i commented one time on WUWT, CAGW alarmists make Creationism seem like harmless child’s play by comparison.

    for those who are still going along with the CAGW scam, how does this destruction of the language sit with you?

    00

  • #
  • #
    wendy

    Alarmist spammer unleashes Twitterbot to stifle climate debate…….

    An Australian software developer grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created spambot to wear down his opponents. The bot responds to anyone who expresses skepticism about man-made global warming by posting one of hundreds of canned replies in an attempt to frustrate skeptics.

    MORE:-

    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/11/alarmist-spammer-unleashes-twitterbot-to-stifle-climate-debate/

    00

  • #
    mike williams

    I hope this is alright jo..but i Like Noel wants the WWF QLD push poll mentioned above it is on this file sharing site
    WWF Push Poll

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tim

    Ambiguous survey questions and computer projections fulfill the same role: muddy the waters and choose whatever results you would prefer.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    John Brookes (33):

    Obviously pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere will change the climate, and the disagreement is on how big a problem (or benefit, if you want to be perverse) it is

    Mr Brookes, time for Dr Spencer’s Vision Test.

    And further to Baa Humbug (36), as we all know (or should know) the biosphere is presently CO2 depleted, the CO2 enhanced atmosphere has already brought and presumably will bring enormous benefits, far outweighing any negatives.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    manalive @ 51

    One would expect the first question a reasonably intelligent person would ask is what is the mass of the atmosphere? “Billions of tonnes of CO2″ put into the atmosphere is used as a propaganda line. Although it is likely that the average arithmetically challenged CAGW activist doesn’t realise what a foolish statement it is without some context.

    Fortunately those who are the target of this line are not quite as stupid as those who propagate it and are more likely to ask, “so what”?

    00

  • #

    Super that you point these things out, Joanne. Thanks.

    K.R. Frank

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sorry Baa Humbug@36. I’d like to respond more, but its not worth trying when the ideas aren’t there….

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yeah well done John; more condescension from the esteemed AGW choosen ones; here’s an idea which should stimulate your superior brain:

    The 20th century temperature rise is consistent with the accumulation of the estimated excess solar radiation of 0.1W/m2 over the period because the response of the system to greenhouse gasses is necessarily limited by the short atmospheric rise time and poor penetration of longwave radiation into the ocean.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    December 8th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Sorry Baa Humbug@36. I’d like to respond more, but its not worth trying when the ideas aren’t there….

    cohenite and Baa Humbug: I believe what John is saying is that the ideas aren’t there in John’s head. Really, now: You can’t expect the man to respond when he hasn’t a clue as to how.

    This interpretation is consistent with John’s responses over the last several months.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT CANCUN – The abdication of the West – THIS MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY WHO VALUES FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    =============================

    From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Cancun, Mexico

    I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

    The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

    Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

    SORRY THE ARTICLE WAS TOO LONG TO POST IN ITS ENTIRETY.

    READ THE REST HERE.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    “……………………How can we, the people, defeat the UN Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretence at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.

    What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.”

    00

  • #
    Engchamp

    “Good policy starts with good English.”
    That is the modus operandi.
    Without the language, we cannot communicate, one to another.

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Anyone ever done a survey on this topic on how and why the weather (or climate no difference really) changes that wasn’t totally loaded?

    00