Australian Car Industry – When in a hole stop digging

At Jo Nova’s unthreaded there is a debate going on about Australian car industry. Started up in the post war era, it is currently going through a crisis. In fact, despite large subsidies, it is collapsing. The major messages I want to get across are:-

  • Learn from other countries. Britain in the 1970s for instance.
  • When in a hole, stop digging. If the car industry is failing, throwing money at it might win a few votes, but damage the economy.
  • Australians have the energy, and entrepreneurial skills, in abundance to create new wealth-generating opportunities.
  • Australians (like other countries) are being crippled by the short-sighted hand of Government, who should recognize that do not have the skills, nor the incentives required to create an industrial policy that is of net benefit to the country as a whole.

On making a new start and learning the lessons of Brazil

To successfully start a new car company is virtually impossible in the modern world. In recent decades the successful ones have been in China, but with the help of, and by copying, established marques. Outside of China, there was Proton of Malaysia. There original car was a 1984 Mitsubishi Lancer. That end of the market you do not want to get into – high subsidies and reliant on cheap labour. The last major car company start-up was (I believe) Honda.
Then there are niche markets. McLaren is doing well in the UK, but a midget and building on its F1 base. As the majority of F1 cars are made around Silverstone, it had an advantage of a skilled labour pool and (most importantly) the engineering and design skills.
The alternative is to do what Brazil did. For years it did not allow any imports. There were four foreign car companies building in Brazil (Fiat, Ford, GM and VW). The quality was shocking, models were decades older than Europe and the the companies colluded. VW built a variant of the Ford Escort and the Beetle came off Ford production lines. In 1994, they opened up to imports, but with a 25% import tax. Very quickly 70-80% of the market was imports. So the Brazilians stuck a 70% tax. The response over a decade was for more foreign companies to open assembly plants. Then came Mercosur – the “free-trade” zone covering most of South America. Now there are plants from Renault, Mercedes (mostly the A-class), Audi and Volvo amongst others.
The major problem of taking this route is the restriction of choice. The Mercosur market (including Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) is a number of times bigger than Australia, and last time I looked, had a more limited choice and higher prices than in Europe.
Learn for Australia what the biggest businesses did in the 1980s. Stick to what you are good at. Let the market develop in Australia based on its comparative advantages. That is farming (which you have developed from low margin sheep farming to high margin wine production) and mining. Then there is tourism as well, so long as you don’t let your government tax air travel.
In the longer term there are spin-off industries. In Britain we don’t have much manufacturing, but we have some of the world’s best designers. Oil production is declining, but a disproportionate amount of global off-shore technological expertise is around Aberdeen.
The mistake of most people to associate wealth with making actual things. It is not. Wealth is about creating greater value than the inputs. Assembling everyday, easily reproducible, objects adds very little value, so is confined to the poorest countries. For instance textiles in Bangladesh, or assembly of commodity items in China. The real wealth comes from new ideas, or taking existing processes and doing them more efficiently and/or effectively than anyone else. That is staying ahead of the game.

A readable primer on the economics is Israel Kirzner’s “Competition and Entrepreneurship.”

When in a hole, stop digging. Lessons of the British Experience

Andrew McRae is torn between ending the subsidies and letting the car industry fold.

Hi Andrew,

I can see why you are torn between Government Industrial policy and letting free markets work. I finished high school and went to university during the early Thatcher years and saw both sides. In the 1970s one of the most famous British cars was the MG Midget – a tiny two seater sports car. There were huge protests when production was stopped, with each car costing twice the selling price. Like most of the cars produced in Britain it was unreliable, particularly when compared with the Japanese competition. The country subsidised many industries, spending 5-8% GDP on subsidies. We tried to get into the computers – and failed. The one bright spot was Concord, developed with the French. A phenomenal technological achievement, it cost £4bn (A$40bn+ in todays money) and the few made were virtually given away. It was a case study in how an original government project at low cost with high rewards switches to the opposite. When mooted in the mid-50s, it was to cost £80m with a market for hundreds of planes.

One thing that you must not lose sight of is the existing workers in your car industry. In Britain in the 1970s there were millions employed in manufacturing, whether the car industry, steel, shipbuilding, engineering, or technology assembly lines. Another 250,000 jobs were in coal mining. Many who were made redundant in their 50s never got jobs again. Many others only obtained lower paid unskilled work. There is still incredible bitterness towards the whole Thatcher legacy. But the fault lay not with ending “industrial policy”, with its ever-growing subsidies, but in starting it in the first place. It is the same principle as for the carbon tax. Even assuming the theoretical case was true, the people least qualified to implement the policy are the politicians. Not because they cannot hire the best experts to devise a policy. It is for business and a carbon tax to work you need to make changes, which will hurt people. In manufacturing you need to continually cut jobs and change. With an “optimal” policy to reduce CO2 emissions some jobs need to be destroyed (to get huge benefits) and people suffer hardship. Politicians who are so openly ruthless get voted out pretty quickly, even though they are doing the best for the country. The best long-term interests of the country are the biggest vote losers, if those politicians are advised think short-term and are advised by spin doctors. Yet the interests of a modern developed country are in providing the structures to enable the future wealth-creating opportunities to develop. Australia is probably the pre-eminent example of a country for this to happen, as there are many people with vision, ability and the passion to make things happen, along with the ability to take risks. The crippling disability that they need to overcome is the risk-averse dead-hand of government who cannot see beyond the next set of opinion polls.

Bjorn Lomborg on Climate Costs in the Australian

Australian Climate Madness blog points to an article, “Wrong way, go back“, in the Australian Newspaper by Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg on Australia’s climate policies. This is my comment.

This statement in the article is significant

When economists estimate the net damage from global warming as a percentage of gross domestic product, they find it will indeed have an overall negative impact in the long run but the impact of moderate warming (1C-2C) will be beneficial. It is only towards the end of the century, when temperatures have risen much more, that global warming will turn negative.

Now consider the Apocalypse Delayed? posting of March 28th. Referring to an Economist article, it says that a number of empirical studies show that climate sensitivity is much lower than the climate models assume. Therefore, moving into the net cost range seems much less likely.
But why are there net costs? Lomberg’s calculations are based on William Nordhaus’s DICE model that

calculates the total costs (from heat waves, hurricanes, crop failure and so on) as well as the total benefits (from cold waves and CO2 fertilisation).

I would claim that the destablisation of the planet’s climate by rapid warming has very little evidence. Claims in AR4 that hurricanes were getting worse; that some African countries would see up to a 50% reduction in crop yields by 2020; that the Himalayan Glaciers would largely disappear by 2035; that the Amazon rainforest could catastrophically collapse – all have been over-turned.
Thus the policy justification for avoiding climate catastrophe as a result rising greenhouse gases is a combination of three components. First, a large rise in temperatures. Second, the resulting destablisation of the climate system having net adverse consequences. Third, is that the cost of constraining the rise in greenhouse gases is less than the cost of doing nothing.
It is only this third aspect that Bjorn Lomberg deals with. Yet despite that he shows that the Australian Government is not “saving the planet for future generations”, but causing huge net harm. Policy-making should consider all three components.

That is, there are three components to the policy justification to combatting “climate change” by constraining the growth in greenhouse gas emissions

  1. That there will be a significant amount of global warming.
  2. That this is net harmful to the planet and the people on it.
  3. That the net harm of policies is less than the net harm of warming. To use a medical analogy, the pain and risks of treatment are less than the disease.

Lomberg, using the best cost model available, comes up with far less costs of global warming than, say, the Stern Review of 2006. He also uses actual policy costs to assess the net harm of global warming. Lomberg does not, however, challenge the amount of warming from a given quantity of CO2 rise, nor the adverse consequences of that warming. The Economist article
and editorial of March 30th conversely challenges the quantity of warming from arising from a given rise in CO2, but just sees it as “apocalypse delayed” and not “apocalypse debunked“.

Kevin Marshall

The Calculus of Climate Change morality

A couple of days ago Jo Nova highlighted another example of an environmentalist, Jonathan Moylan, who thought that to save the planet they were morally justified in committing criminal acts. My posting is on one journalist’s opinion that Moylan should be applauded, not prosecuted.

Katherine Wilson in the Age opinion says

Moylan’s hoax asks us to consider a broader category of victims: the world’s citizens and environments who are facing the real consequence of big polluters such as coal companies.

When asked by the Newcastle Herald whether his actions were justified, Moylan said

 My intention was to get ANZ Bank to expose themselves as the backers of the Maules Creek project. Some media organisations have used the word ”justify” – this is not my word. My prime concern is the local community, which has been feeling very despondent – the forest, our health and our water.

That is Moylan does not think he is saving the planet from catastrophic climate change. Or at least he claiming not to do have done so after the event. Let us, however, assume that Katherine Wilson is correct in assuming Moylan’s actions were more to do global climate change than local environmental issues.

The moral case is that the harms caused in the necessary publicizing of an issue are insignificant compared to beside larger damage occurring. It we were able to go back in a time machine to April 20th 1889, and strangle the newly born son of Klara and Alois Hitler, would we be justified in doing so. One death could have saved the life of millions, as without a charismatic leader the extremist nationalist elements in Weimar Germany would never have come to the fore. But what if the communists had come to power in Germany instead? They were certainly the main opposition that the Nazis staged street battles with in the 1920s. Suppose that they joined with the Soviets to invade Poland and then the rest of Europe? With the many millions of people that died in the Gulags, along with the tens of millions that had died in the collectivisation of agriculture, could the death of an infant conceivably have caused even greater misery?

I use this example, not to ponder nor the morality of killing infants (or later killing the Adolf Hitler once he became the charismatic leader of the Nazi party). It is to consider whether, for climate change, such a calculus of causing a small harm will lead to the prevention of a larger harm. With respect to climate change, this depends on three factors. First, the likely harm from future unimpeded climate change will have catastrophic consequences. Second, the likely harm of the action to highlight awareness of the issue is trivial compared to the impending climate catastrophe. Third, that will be significant success in getting the issue recognised.

If climate change is vastly exaggerated then there is a risk that Moylan is campaigning for policies that are not justified. The treatment is more harmful than the ailment. If the harm caused by the action is vastly greater than anticipated, or the full extent is not recognised post the event (“you’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette” mentality), then there is an element of recklessness. If there are already policies in place to optimally tackle the issue, and the media is already on the side of the consensus opinion, then aggressive action to further highlight the cause is that is already more than fully recognised is positively harmful to society. It could lead to policies not justified by the scientific evidence, however construed.

Consider the following from Katherine Wilson’s argument.

At the parliamentary level, Greens senator Christine Milne has applauded his actions as being ”part of a long and proud history of civil disobedience, potentially breaking the law, to highlight something wrong”.

Read more: 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HrZL2qbJ

Like the Nazis smashing up the shops of Jews, or beating up communists to highlight that their great nation is being over-run? Most people will now accept that the racist laws that existed in America’s Deep South in the 1950s, or the denial of universal suffrage for all adults in Britain prior to 1918 were immoral, and therefore at least some of the protests were justified. But most sane people will accept that the cause of the Nazis was evil, so any sort of illegal actions to promote their ideas is wrong. Wilson and Milne are assuming they stand on the moral high ground. Whilst not considering them as bad as the Nazis, I do believe them morally to be nearer to that position than of Martin Luther King, or Emmeline Pankhurst, as the points below will demonstrate.

For those citizens who have not given up on the conviction that taking action is ”the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”, there is little choice but to pull off hoaxes of this kind.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HrZbJTY9

Again, others may disagree. Al Qaeda sees the greatest challenge as spreading Islam. For millions in Southern Europe finding a job, or being paid for their work, is far more important. Dr Indur Goklany. looking at the consensus projections of climate impacts thinks that in the next few decades there are far more important issues facing humanity.

Moylan’s hoax asks us to consider a broader category of victims: the world’s citizens and environments who are facing the real consequence of big polluters such as coal companies.

Read more: 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HreCE8d7

For more than two billion people in Asia, any environmental problems of rapid development may seem trivial to the huge benefits of being able to eat better, or having access to ever-increasing levels of healthcare and education.

For all the ”free market of ideas” posturing, the media and finance marketplace that Moylan sought to disrupt is not some equal playing field operating under rules of fair play. As countless journalism academics have documented, news agendas are set by public servants, PR agents, politicians and business leaders.

Read more: 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HrZwtWaP

It would be nice to know where Moylan’s views are under-represented. I know that I live on the other side of the planet here so I may have the wrong perspective. Did the Gillard Government enact a carbon tax last July to look tackle the problem of climate change? Was this policy one of the most stringent in the world? Does the “Age” publish the opinions environmentalists? Does the “Age” give fair coverage of both sides, or does it give voice to those deliberately misrepresent the sceptic position? Does the major TV network give impartial coverage, deliberately misrepresent one side? For example, when Jo Nova was interviewed for a “debate” on climate.

This is why Moylan orchestrated his hoax at a time when the Australian Securities Exchange is operating at a fraction of normal levels.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2Hra4WJ6L

Wilson is implying that Moylan planned the attacked to minimize the potential damage. But Jonathan Moylan has said

“.. it has had a much bigger impact than I expected.”

It looks like Katherine Wilson is trying to make Moylan out as somebody who understood the cost-benefit calculus of minimal damage for maximum effect, whereas Moylan is claiming the opposite.

True, his action may have affected the sort of ”ordinary” people who have blind faith that finance markets are based on trust and immutable laws. But are the people who gamble their spare funds in coal industry investments really the victims here?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2Hre6ea2i

Wilson in effect condemns Moylan. Finance markets are based on trust. If the hoax has consequences for undermining peoples trust in making contracts, then the consequential costs are far greater than the short-term losses. She would have to show that she has in place an alternative system where trust is not important. I can think of some, but these are inferior to a market-based system, both morally (based on rule by fear) and economically. Wilson then makes an assumption about the investors. It might be people’s pensions that are at stake here. It might be from people who do not share environmentalist’s morality, or who simply think that the Labor Government is doing sufficient from the carbon tax.

To charge Moylan on the basis of fraud would also be disingenuous. As Fairfax journalist Eric Johnston reported on Tuesday, the ASX is subject to frequent hoaxes. How many rogue traders have used false takeover bids or issued statements to profit illegally from movements in the market? How many finance journalists and PR agents were complicit in deceiving finance markets in the lead-up to the global financial crisis?

Read more: 
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HrerI3p2

My reading of the law is that Moylan should be charged just the same as those who hoax for personal gain, or simply to cause damage for non-ideological reasons. The motives should be taken into account in deciding the severity of the charge, and if found guilty, the severity of the punishment. It could be argued that his hoax should be treated far more seriously than a fraud for personal gain, as it could viewed as an act of economic sabotage. In fact Wilson in effect condemns him For instance, burning down an empty building to instil fear should be viewed far more seriously than an arsonist who has a fixation with seeing buildings burn. In the first case, it undermines the rule of law, along with the other causes

In summary, none of the three conditions to say that there is a moral benefit in breaking the law are met. First. the climate change issue is likely to be grossly exaggerated. Second. the hoax may have had huge harm. Third, climate change policies have already been enacted and the media presence is considerable. For a journalist to claim otherwise is the sign of a blinkered extremist.

Kevin Marshall

My opinions are my own. If they are in error, then I will consider reasoned replies. If anyone would like a right of reply, I would be happy to publish it, so that people can compare the arguments. I reserve the right to publish a counter argument. If you wish to contact me, please do so through the comments. I will not publish any approach for debate, but reserve the right to publish any approach that uses threats to shut-off my counter-arguments, despite due warning.

Is Australia near the fiscal tipping points of Europe?

Although in Australia the current economic situation may seem bad, it is nothing like as dire are Europe.

There is a new issue. After a long period of surpluses in 2009 the government created significant deficits. These do not seem justified by the small slowdown in economic growth. Any ideas?

Using World Bank Data, many of the Eurozone countries have been running large, structural deficits for years. Australia only went into deficit in 2009.


As a result, Australia’s national debt is small relative to GDP compared with the European nations.


The relative problem can be seen from the growth rates. Australia has yet to go into a full year of recession. That is growth of less than zero.


Neither has growth dipped much below the average for 1998 to 2007.

East Australia High Speed Rail – Opening Comments

Bernd Felsche has been blogging recently on proposals for a High Speed Rail project for Eastern Australia. The details and Phase 1 report are here.

In Britain there has recently been approved a HSR project from London to Birmingham, costing at least £17.1bn (A$26.7bn) for just 190km of track. The estimated cost of A$61bn to A$108bn for around 1644km looks remarkably good value in comparison. However, it is worth studying the underlying assumptions.

The Taxpayers Alliance has made a number of damming criticisms of the UK project. In particular that the actual costs could be nearly three times the estimated if supporting infrastructure improvements are taken into account. Having also looked at the Manchester Congestion Charging Scheme in 2008, I thought it might be worth a perusal.

The basis for the project is the projected demand, so my first comments are population and demand levels.

Initial Thoughts on Population

The study assumes a high level of population growth for Australia as a whole. From the current 23m, population is forecast to be between 30 and 40m in 2056. That is growth of 30% to 74% over 45 years. Taking the mid-point, that is 52.2% growth to 35m. East Australia is forecast to grow 58.3% from 17.8m to 28.2m, leaving growth in the rest of Australia of 30.7% (5.2 to 6.8m).


Map from page iii of Executive Summary, annotated with city population growth projections for 2011 to 2056.

The highest growth in population (using Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Projections Australia 2006 – 2101, 2008 (Series B forecasts updated)) is projected to be in the Brisbane area. Given that this is the least populated end of the line, these population projections need to be put through a sensitivity analysis. With much lower projections for South East Queensland growth it could be that the northern stretch of the line and one third the estimated cost is not economically justified.

Passenger Growth

From the Executive Summary page iv

The population of the east coast states and territory of Australia is forecast to increase from 18 million people in 2011 to 28 million people by 2056. Over 100 million long distance trips are made on the east coast of Australia each year, and this is forecast to grow to 264 million long-distance trips over the next 45 years.

So population will grow by 58% and long distance trips by 164%. By 2036 (with 35% growth in population), they will have grabbed half the project air market in 2036 for Melbourne to Sydney and Brisbane to Sydney. With such a huge capital outlay how can this be?

Capital Cost

From the Executive Summary

International experience suggests it is unrealistic to expect the capital cost of a HSR network to be recovered.

The reason that the projected fares look so cheap, so that there is not going to be any recovery of the costs in fares. So the

competitive ticket prices, with one way fares (in $2011) from Brisbane to Sydney costing $75–$177; Sydney to Melbourne $99–$197; and $16.50 for daily commuters between Newcastle and Sydney

are no such thing. A quick check on single flights from Melbourne to Sydney reveals prices of $125 economy and $850 business. The HSR will be financed out of taxation to grab market share from air travel.

Kevin Marshall


Lewandowsky et al. 2012 MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE – Part 2

This post was based on the belief that the survey I took in June was the one used in the paper. I realize now this is not the case. The one I took at “Watching the Deniers” is a development of the 2010 survey. There are less questions on conspiracy theories (but “NASA faked the moon landing”, along with Diana, JFK and MLK assassinations are are still in) along with exactly the same questions on Free markets v Environmentalism. But the new survey has more on political beliefs (a good thing in my view) along with new sections on religious beliefs and GM foods. The summary I made back in June is here.

The paper Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac – NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (in press, Psychological Science) is one of the biased and pernicious surveys I have come across. The previous posting was on the opening remarks on the validity of climate science. There are a few points where the survey deviates from a professional and balanced opinion survey.

Problems with the survey

  1. The access to the survey. It was an internet based survey, with links posted on 8 “pro-science” blogs. Five skeptic blogs were approached. As such, one would expect that “pro-science” responses would far outweigh “denialist” responses. I cannot find the split.
  2. There should have been a record kept of abandoned survey results. The survey gets more dogmatic as it progresses, and becomes far longer than originally stated (74 questions, as against 40 in 10 minutes quoted at the outset). Moderate skeptics would have quickly abandoned the survey when they realised what was being inferred. Others, as the questions became more time consuming and “weird”. See if this is a valid conclusion by first reading the questions, then my analysis.
  3. Not reported is the relationship between “climate denial” and genetically modified foods. Is the correlation the reverse? Nor is there any reporting of the section on climate change against conservative Christian religious views, or climate change against views on corporations. The survey only reported the most dogmatic results. Could it be that there is something relevant, but adverse to the desired conclusions here, or no relationship?
  4. There were also final questions on age and gender. Again, this should be reported.
  5. The main inference of the survey is that those who oppose climate change science are nut-jobs, whilst those who agree with it are pro-science. This saves having to explain the lack of any credible scientific evidence for the projected global catastrophe that we all need to be saved from.

Lewandowsky et al. 2012 MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE – Part 1

The paper Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac – NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (in press, Psychological Science) is one of the most biased and pernicious surveys I have come across. This posting is about the opening remarks.

The paper starts by accepting the validity of science is from beliefs of scientists.


More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009)

The first paper simply says that of the climate scientists who are convinced of climate change arguments as far more numerous and publish far more than scientists that are unconvinced. The most positive spin you can put on this is that those who believe in and are passionate about what they are doing tend to succeed more than those who don’t. You would probably find similar proportions of within New Testament theology or Marxian economics. It says nothing about the truth and the validity of the main claim – unless we act quickly to reduce global carbon emissions, the planet is heading for catastrophic global warming.

The second paper asked two questions:-

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

It is only the second question that mentions the human element. In maths “largely” (i.e. > 50%) is a subset of “significant” (a measurable part). Neither is CO2 the only human factor causing climate change (Methane plus other gases increase the greenhouse effect, aerosols offset the warming). Further, the Doran and Zimmerman paper is (to put it charitably) is a hugely flawed survey. Reference to it in another “peer reviewed” survey shows does not bode well for the quality of the results.

Analysis of the Survey Questions here and actual questions here

Climate Change Questionnaire of Univ of Western Australia

This is the climate change questionnaire questions in the survey I answered in early June 2012 and commented upon here.

UPDATE

It has been brought to my attention that this is NOT the questionnaire used in Lewandowsky et al 2012. There are similarities but this appears to be a development of the 2010 survey, and was probably being trailed at Watching the Deniers site. It was located on the University of Western Australia site – try the link.  THE ACTUAL (& shorter) QUESTIONNAIRE is analyzed here.

I believe that this survey is the basis of the recent paper:-

Lewandowsky, Oberauer & GignacNASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (in press, Psychological Science)

Note to Professor Lewandowsky of University of Western Australia

If this is not the original survey, but has been doctored in any way, I will happily publish the actual survey. I will also provide details of the researcher and the url for any investigation. I can be contacted through the moderated comments. I am not aware of any copyright restrictions on reposting the questions. I accessed this from “Watching the Deniers” website, where there was no mention of copyright material. Neither was there any mention of copyright on the introductory front page. The doing a search I only came across a link to a 2010 survey. Neither could I find a link within The University of Western Australia Website, though it is on their servers.

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation. Strongly Disagree

I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation. Disagree

I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation. Neutral

I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation. Agree

I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation. Strongly Agree

I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Strongly Disagree

I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Disagree

I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Neutral

I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Agree

I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Strongly Agree

I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate. Strongly Disagree

I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate. Disagree

I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate. Neutral

I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate. Agree

I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate. Strongly Agree

Human CO2 emissions cause climate change.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Strongly Disagree

Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Disagree

Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Neutral

Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Agree

Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Strongly Agree

Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature. Strongly Disagree

Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature. Disagree

Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature. Neutral

Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature. Agree

Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population. Strongly Disagree

I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population. Disagree

I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population. Neutral

I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population. Agree

I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population. Strongly Agree

I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment. Strongly Disagree

I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment. Disagree

I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment. Neutral

I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment. Agree

I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment. Strongly Agree

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The consequences of genetic modification have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and only foods that have been found safe will be made available to the public. Strongly Disagree

The consequences of genetic modification have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and only foods that have been found safe will be made available to the public. Disagree

The consequences of genetic modification have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and only foods that have been found safe will be made available to the public. Neutral

The consequences of genetic modification have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and only foods that have been found safe will be made available to the public. Agree

The consequences of genetic modification have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and only foods that have been found safe will be made available to the public. Strongly Agree

I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods. Strongly Disagree

I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods. Disagree

I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods. Neutral

I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods. Agree

I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods. Strongly Agree

Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology. Strongly Disagree

Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology. Disagree

Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology. Neutral

Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology. Agree

Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases. Strongly Disagree

I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases. Disagree

I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases. Neutral

I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases. Agree

I believe that vaccines are a safe and reliable way to help avert the spread of preventable diseases. Strongly Agree

I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children. Strongly Disagree

I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children. Disagree

I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children. Neutral

I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children. Agree

I believe that vaccines have negative side effects that outweigh the benefits of vaccination for children. Strongly Agree

Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe. Strongly Disagree

Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe. Disagree

Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe. Neutral

Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe. Agree

Vaccines are thoroughly tested in the laboratory and wouldn’t be made available to the public unless it was known that they are safe. Strongly Agree

The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits Strongly Disagree

The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits Disagree

The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits Neutral

The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits Agree

The risk of vaccinations to maim and kill children outweighs their health benefits Strongly Agree

Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health. Strongly Disagree

Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health. Disagree

Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health. Neutral

Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health. Agree

Vaccinations are one of the most significant contributions to public health. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I am politically more liberal than conservative.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I am politically more liberal than conservative. Strongly Disagree

I am politically more liberal than conservative. Disagree

I am politically more liberal than conservative. Neutral

I am politically more liberal than conservative. Agree

I am politically more liberal than conservative. Strongly Agree

In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat. Strongly Disagree

In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat. Disagree

In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat. Neutral

In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat. Agree

In any election, given a choice between a Republican and a Democratic candidate, I will select the Republican over the Democrat. Strongly Agree

Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology. Strongly Disagree

Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology. Disagree

Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology. Neutral

Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology. Agree

Communism has been proven to be a failed political ideology. Strongly Agree

I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates. Strongly Disagree

I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates. Disagree

I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates. Neutral

I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates. Agree

I cannot see myself ever voting to elect conservative candidates. Strongly Agree

The major national media are too left-wing for my taste.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The major national media are too left-wing for my taste. Strongly Disagree

The major national media are too left-wing for my taste. Disagree

The major national media are too left-wing for my taste. Neutral

The major national media are too left-wing for my taste. Agree

The major national media are too left-wing for my taste. Strongly Agree

Socialism has many advantages over capitalism.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Socialism has many advantages over capitalism. Strongly Disagree

Socialism has many advantages over capitalism. Disagree

Socialism has many advantages over capitalism. Neutral

Socialism has many advantages over capitalism. Agree

Socialism has many advantages over capitalism. Strongly Agree

On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right. Strongly Disagree

On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right. Disagree

On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right. Neutral

On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right. Agree

On balance, I lean politically more to the left than to the right. Strongly Agree

Select ‘neutral’ from the options below

 

 

 

Srongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

 

 

 

Select ‘neutral’ from the options below   Srongly Disagree

  Disagree

  Neutral

  Agree

  Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Strongly Disagree

An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Disagree

An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Neutral

An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Agree

An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Strongly Agree

The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Strongly Disagree

The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Disagree

The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Neutral

The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Agree

The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Strongly Agree

The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Strongly Disagree

The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Disagree

The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Neutral

The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Agree

The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Strongly Agree

Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Strongly Disagree

Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Disagree

Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Neutral

Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Agree

Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Strongly Agree

The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Strongly Disagree

The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Disagree

The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Neutral

The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Agree

The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments. Strongly Disagree

A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments. Disagree

A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments. Neutral

A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments. Agree

A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order is planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government which would replace sovereign governments. Strongly Agree

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Strongly Disagree

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Disagree

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Neutral

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Agree

The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. was the result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Strongly Agree

The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. Strongly Disagree

The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. Disagree

The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. Neutral

The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. Agree

The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. Strongly Agree

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President. Strongly Disagree

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President. Disagree

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President. Neutral

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President. Agree

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the President. Strongly Agree

The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Strongly Disagree

The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Disagree

The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Neutral

The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Agree

The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Strongly Agree

Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Strongly Disagree

Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Disagree

Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Neutral

Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Agree

Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research. Strongly Disagree

The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research. Disagree

The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research. Neutral

The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research. Agree

The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research. Strongly Agree

U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. Strongly Disagree

U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. Disagree

U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. Neutral

U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. Agree

U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. Strongly Agree

The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma. Strongly Disagree

The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma. Disagree

The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma. Neutral

The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma. Agree

The alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

The HIV virus causes AIDS.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The HIV virus causes AIDS. Strongly Disagree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Disagree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Neutral

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Agree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Strongly Agree

Smoking causes lung cancer.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Smoking causes lung cancer. Strongly Disagree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Disagree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Neutral

Smoking causes lung cancer. Agree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Strongly Agree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Strongly Disagree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Disagree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Neutral

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Agree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

The HIV virus causes AIDS.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The HIV virus causes AIDS. Strongly Disagree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Disagree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Neutral

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Agree

The HIV virus causes AIDS. Strongly Agree

Smoking causes lung cancer.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Smoking causes lung cancer. Strongly Disagree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Disagree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Neutral

Smoking causes lung cancer. Agree

Smoking causes lung cancer. Strongly Agree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk.

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Strongly Disagree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Disagree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Neutral

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Agree

Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk. Strongly Agree


Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

God is important in my life

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: God is important in my life Strongly Disagree

God is important in my life Disagree

God is important in my life Neutral

God is important in my life Agree

God is important in my life Strongly Agree

I believe there is a life after death

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I believe there is a life after death Strongly Disagree

I believe there is a life after death Disagree

I believe there is a life after death Neutral

I believe there is a life after death Agree

I believe there is a life after death Strongly Agree

I get comfort or strength from religion

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I get comfort or strength from religion Strongly Disagree

I get comfort or strength from religion Disagree

I get comfort or strength from religion Neutral

I get comfort or strength from religion Agree

I get comfort or strength from religion Strongly Agree

There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now Strongly Disagree

There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now Disagree

There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now Neutral

There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now Agree

There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now Strongly Agree

I think of myself as a religious person

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I think of myself as a religious person Strongly Disagree

I think of myself as a religious person Disagree

I think of myself as a religious person Neutral

I think of myself as a religious person Agree

I think of myself as a religious person Strongly Agree

I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God Strongly Disagree

I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God Disagree

I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God Neutral

I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God Agree

I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God Strongly Agree

I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful Strongly Disagree

I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful Disagree

I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful Neutral

I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful Agree

I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful Strongly Agree

I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God Strongly Disagree

I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God Disagree

I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God Neutral

I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God Agree

I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God Strongly Agree

Select option ‘C’ from below:

 

 

 

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

 

 

 

Select option ‘C’ from below:   A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years Strongly Disagree

Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years Disagree

Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years Neutral

Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years Agree

Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years Strongly Agree

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing Strongly Disagree

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing Disagree

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing Neutral

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing Agree

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing Strongly Agree

Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory Strongly Disagree

Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory Disagree

Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory Neutral

Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory Agree

Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory Strongly Agree

There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory Strongly Disagree

There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory Disagree

There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory Neutral

There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory Agree

There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory Strongly Agree

Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have Strongly Disagree

Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have Disagree

Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have Neutral

Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have Agree

Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have Strongly Agree

Evolution is a scientifically valid theory

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Evolution is a scientifically valid theory Strongly Disagree

Evolution is a scientifically valid theory Disagree

Evolution is a scientifically valid theory Neutral

Evolution is a scientifically valid theory Agree

Evolution is a scientifically valid theory Strongly Agree

Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology Strongly Disagree

Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology Disagree

Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology Neutral

Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology Agree

Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Corporations are not respectful of laws

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations are not respectful of laws Strongly Disagree

Corporations are not respectful of laws Disagree

Corporations are not respectful of laws Neutral

Corporations are not respectful of laws Agree

Corporations are not respectful of laws Strongly Agree

Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions Strongly Disagree

Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions Disagree

Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions Neutral

Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions Agree

Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions Strongly Agree

People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits Strongly Disagree

People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits Disagree

People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits Neutral

People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits Agree

People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits Strongly Agree

Corporations do not care about acting ethically

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations do not care about acting ethically Strongly Disagree

Corporations do not care about acting ethically Disagree

Corporations do not care about acting ethically Neutral

Corporations do not care about acting ethically Agree

Corporations do not care about acting ethically Strongly Agree

Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it Strongly Disagree

Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it Disagree

Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it Neutral

Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it Agree

Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it Strongly Agree

Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests Strongly Disagree

Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests Disagree

Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests Neutral

Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests Agree

Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests Strongly Agree

Corporations are driven by greed

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations are driven by greed Strongly Disagree

Corporations are driven by greed Disagree

Corporations are driven by greed Neutral

Corporations are driven by greed Agree

Corporations are driven by greed Strongly Agree

Corporations care only about money

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations care only about money Strongly Disagree

Corporations care only about money Disagree

Corporations care only about money Neutral

Corporations care only about money Agree

Corporations care only about money Strongly Agree

Corporations want power at any cost

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations want power at any cost Strongly Disagree

Corporations want power at any cost Disagree

Corporations want power at any cost Neutral

Corporations want power at any cost Agree

Corporations want power at any cost Strongly Agree

Corporations take a lot more than they give

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations take a lot more than they give Strongly Disagree

Corporations take a lot more than they give Disagree

Corporations take a lot more than they give Neutral

Corporations take a lot more than they give Agree

Corporations take a lot more than they give Strongly Agree

Corporations intentionally deceive the public

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations intentionally deceive the public Strongly Disagree

Corporations intentionally deceive the public Disagree

Corporations intentionally deceive the public Neutral

Corporations intentionally deceive the public Agree

Corporations intentionally deceive the public Strongly Agree

Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions Strongly Disagree

Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions Disagree

Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions Neutral

Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions Agree

Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions Strongly Agree

Corporations exploit their workers

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Corporations exploit their workers Strongly Disagree

Corporations exploit their workers Disagree

Corporations exploit their workers Neutral

Corporations exploit their workers Agree

Corporations exploit their workers Strongly Agree

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I have so much in life to be thankful for

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I have so much in life to be thankful for Strongly Disagree

I have so much in life to be thankful for Disagree

I have so much in life to be thankful for Neutral

I have so much in life to be thankful for Agree

I have so much in life to be thankful for Strongly Agree

If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list Strongly Disagree

If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list Disagree

If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list Neutral

If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list Agree

If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list Strongly Agree

When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for Strongly Disagree

When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for Disagree

When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for Neutral

When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for Agree

When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for Strongly Agree

I am grateful to a wide variety of people

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: I am grateful to a wide variety of people Strongly Disagree

I am grateful to a wide variety of people Disagree

I am grateful to a wide variety of people Neutral

I am grateful to a wide variety of people Agree

I am grateful to a wide variety of people Strongly Agree

As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history Strongly Disagree

As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history Disagree

As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history Neutral

As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history Agree

As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of my life history Strongly Agree

Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone Strongly Disagree

Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone Disagree

Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone Neutral

Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone Agree

Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone Strongly Agree

What is your age?


What is your gender?

manicbeancounter:

This post by Steven Goddard brings together a number of pieces of evidence that “real world” data has been systematically adjusted to fit the theory.
BEWARE THE FLASHING GRAPHS LOWER DOWN.

This is only the second time I have reblogged somebody else’s work in the four years my blog has been running. The reason is that I often observe lots of pieces of evidence that suggest bias, but rarely are some of the pieces of evidence put together to corroborate each other.
Other bits of evidence (from memory)
1. The Darwen, Australia temperature record.
2. The temperature record for New Zealand.
3. The temperature record for Australia – which has recently be replaced to evade an external audit.
4. The HADCRUT temperature series being brought into line with GISSTEMP to save having to hide the divergence.http://manicbeancounter.com/2011/04/05/nasa-excludes-an-inconvenient-figure-on-2010-temperatures/

It is not just ex-post adjustments of individual temperature series that creates an artificially large warming trend. There are also the statistical methods used to determine the “average” reading.

Originally posted on Real Science:

There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.

The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Briffa’s trees showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

The 1975 National Academy Of Sciences report also showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

NCAR reported a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

The USHCN daily temperature data showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

GISS graphs from the eastern Arctic showed a sharp decline in temperatures after 1940

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

GISS US temperature graphs showed a sharp drop in temperatures after 1940

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

The Directors of CRU and NCAR forecast a continuing drop in temperatures.

Hubert Lamb CRU Director : “The last twenty years of this century will be progressively colder

http://news.google.com/newspapers/

John Firor NCAR director : “it appears…

View original 322 more words

Gergis 2012 Mark 2 – Hurdles to overcome

BishopHill reported yesterday on the withdrawn Gergis paper that

The authors are currently reviewing the data and methods. The revised paper will be re-submitted to the Journal of Climate by the end of July and it will be sent out for peer review again.

It is worth listing the long list of criticisms that have been made of the paper. There are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Gergis et al 2012 should qualify for the status of a scientific paper.

My own, quite basic, points are:-

  1. Too few proxies for such a large area. Just 27 for > 5% of the globe.
  2. Even then, 6 are well outside the area.
  3. Of these six, Gergis’s table makes it appear 3 are inside the area. My analysis is below.


  4. Despite huge area, there are significant clusters – with massive differences between proxies at the same or nearby sites.
  5. There are no proxies from the sub-continental land mass of Australia.
  6. Need to remove the Palmyra Proxy because (a) it has errant readings (b) fails the ‘t’ test (c) > 2000km outside of the area, in the Northern Hemisphere.
  7. Without Palmyra the medieval period becomes the warmest of the millennium. But with just two tree ring proxies, one at 42 O South and the other at 43 O S representing an range from 0 to 50O S, this is hardly reliable. See the sum of proxies by year. Palmyra is the coral proxy in the 12th, 14th and 15th centuries.


On top of this are Steve McIntyre’s (with assistance from JeanS and RomanM) more fundamental criticisms:-

  1. The filtering method of Gergis excluded the high quality Law Dome series, but included the lower quality Vostok data, and the Oroko tree ring proxy. McIntyre notes that Jones and Mann 2003 rejected Oroko, but included Law Dome on different criteria.
  2. Gergis screening correlations were incorrectly calculated. JeanS calculated properly. Only 6 out of 27 proxies passed. (NB none of the six proxies outside the area passed)


  3. The Gergis initially screened 62 proxies. Given that the screening included proxies that should not have included 21 proxies, but should it have included some of the 35 excluded proxies. We do not know, as Gergis has refused to reveal these excluded proxies.
  4. Screening creates a bias in the results in favour of the desired result if that correlation is with a short period of the data. RomanM states the issues succinctly here. My, more colloquial take, is that if the proxies (to some extent) randomly show C20th warming or not, then you will accept proxies with a C20th uptick. If proxies show previous fluctuations (to some extent) randomly and (to some extent) independently of the C20th uptick, then those previous fluctuations will be understated. There only has to be a minor amount of randomness to show bias given that a major conclusion was

    The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels.

UPDATE 03/08/12

The end of July submissions date seems to have slipped to the end of September.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers