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?

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 GISTEMP to save having to hide the divergence.

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.

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 post 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.

Australian Climate Science Opinion Survey – Confirming Prejudices?*

This survey I took in June is not the one used in the recent Lewandowsky et al paper. The one I took at “Watching the Deniers” is a development that 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. It seems to be directed beyond the free-marketeers, to other groups like the American Religious Right.

The Psychology Department of the University of Western Australia, under psychology research assistant Charles Hanich is conducting a short questionnaire on Science and Society.

UPDATE – The survey questions are available here.

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

This study explores people’s beliefs about a wide range of topics, ranging from scientific propositions to claims made in the media and on the internet. In addition, the survey is interested in your attitudes towards your own life and issues confronting modern societies at the moment.

The questions all have five options – Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree and Strongly Agree.

The questions are from both perspectives, so that people who are anything but totally neutral will have to agree with some questions and disagree with others.

The sections as follows (My headings)

  1. Climate Change – 5 questions
  2. Genetically Modified Foods – 5 questions
  3. Vaccines – Benefits and harms – 5 questions
  4. Position of the Conservative / Liberal perspective (US definitions) – 7 questions
  5. Select neutral (check of the software, or check for spam?) – 1 questions
  6. Free market system v social justice / environment / sustainability – 5 questions
  7. Conspiracy theories (political) – 6 questions
  8. Conspiracy theories (scientific) – 6 questions
  9. Personal Spirituality & Religion – 8 questions
  10. Evolution – views upon – 7 questions
  11. Corporations – 13 questions
  12. Personal emotional outlook – 6 questions

That is 74 questions in total. Like a lot of surveys, it understates the questions (“about 40”) and the time taken.

Climate Change Questions

  1. I believe that the climate is always changing and what we are currently observing is just natural fluctuation.
  2. I believe that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
  3. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels over the last 50 years has caused serious damage to the planet’s climate.
  4. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change.
  5. Humans are too insignificant to have an appreciable impact on global temperature.

There is a complete absence of questions about future projections of warming; whether that warming is catastrophic or benign; of the strength of the science or the uncertainties; our trust in what scientists are telling us; nor of the ability of policy to do anything successfully combat it. These are the questions that many sceptics, including myself, are grappling with.

Genetically Modified Foods
Questions

  1. I believe that genetic modification is an important and viable contribution to help feed the world’s rapidly growing population.
  2. I believe genetically engineered foods have already damaged the environment.
  3. 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.
  4. I believe that because there are so many unknowns, that it is dangerous to manipulate the natural genetic material of foods.
  5. Genetic modification of foods is a safe and reliable technology.

In contrast these are questions do look at the benefits and costs of the science; the current impacts and future impacts; along with the strength of the science and the uncertainties.

NB the vaccines section follows more on the model of GM foods section rather than climate change.

The political spectrum questions I will leave for others to comment upon. It seems to be written by an American-influenced “liberal” who lacks knowledge of the full spectrum of political thought.

Free Markets v social justice / environment / sustainability

  1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs.
  2. The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice.
  3. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns.
  4. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development.
  5. The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption.

It is based on a notion of free-market anarchy against on the beneficial utopian society. No mention of awkward facts, like the worst environmental disasters and social injustices in the last century occurred in authoritarian regimes of left and right.

Conspiracy theories (political)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her.

Basically, if you read the communiques and the proclamations coming out of annual meeting like Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban that say we must have a strong global organization to impose climate change, you should consider yourself as much a crank or nutter as those who think George Bush was capable of the phenomenally detailed planning required to stage the 9-11 attacks (but totally failed to successfully bring peace through conquest in Iraq or Afghanistan).

Conspiracy theories (Scientific)

  1. 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.
  2. U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s.
  3. 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.
  4. The HIV virus causes AIDS.
  5. Smoking causes lung cancer.
  6. Lead in drinking water poses a serious long-term health risk.

The questions on climate and second-hand tobacco smoke lump two concepts together; a lot of money wasted for very little output along with the alleged motives of those practicing their research. In between is a particularly distasteful conspiracy theory, the very idea of which would be repellent to most people. The other three questions are simple statements of well-established science. There is no loading or controversy.

Religion and Evolution.

  1. God is important in my life
  2. I believe there is a life after death
  3. I get comfort or strength from religion
  4. There is no proof of God: if there is a God, he would have shown himself by now
  5. I think of myself as a religious person
  6. I have made a personal commitment to live my life for God
  7. I have had an experience of spiritual worship that was very moving and powerful
  8. I have experienced a definite answer to prayer or specific guidance from God
  9. Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years
  10. The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing
  11. Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory
  12. There is a significant body of data that supports evolutionary theory
  13. Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have
  14. Evolution is a scientifically valid theory
  15. Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology

This is meant to distinguish between the US bible-belt evangelical Christians and the atheistic scientific community. It does so in a non-partisan way, so that Muslims could answer as well. However, it does not take into account the more nuanced, earnest, balanced and thoughtful approaches to the interactions of hard science and the timeless spiritual truths, as typified, is not caricatured, by Dr Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury.

Corporations

  1. Corporations are not respectful of laws
  2. Corporations do not accept accountability for their actions
  3. People who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits
  4. Corporations do not care about acting ethically
  5. Corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it
  6. Corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests
  7. Corporations are driven by greed
  8. Corporations care only about money
  9. Corporations want power at any cost
  10. Corporations take a lot more than they give
  11. Corporations intentionally deceive the public
  12. Corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions
  13. Corporations exploit their workers

Any notion of balance goes completely out of the window. It is by far the largest section in a questionnaire on “Science and Society”. There is no switching between good points of corporations – such as technological breakthroughs, or much of our phenomenal prosperity. That includes the “Eco” technologies and the must-have gadgets from a fruity American 70s start-up. It is almost as if they want the more moderate participants to give up in disgust. Do avoid permanent psychological damage, they questionnaire end with a few personal questions about things in life you are thankful for, and people that you are grateful to.

The missing sections

No not the political spectrum one. The missing questions that a more balanced questionnaire might ask.

  1. General trust in climate science.
  2. Trust in carefully presented evidence, with questions respectively answered, as against the dogma of “scientists agree”.
  3. Questions for the Australian people, of whether carbon tax policies are worthwhile
  4. Questions on trust in government; the motives of politicians; the ability to deliver on promises. In relation to both Western democracies and tyrannies past and present.
  5. The importance of tackling climate change relative to other issues like unemployment and prospective financial meltdown in parts of Europe.

Conclusion

When devising a questionnaire, one must always try to eliminate bias, and avoid emotionally loaded the questions that will prejudice the answers. Neither should it contain multiple issues in a question. This survey does just the opposite. It is started off being deliberately designed to elicit certain polarized responses, ending up showing the deeply prejudiced and politically extreme position of the author.

*Please note. 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.

Did Wivenhoe dam operators SEQwater swallow the CAGW hype on Australian Droughts?

The Australian “The Climate Sceptics Blog” takes a look at the Wivenhoe dam’s involvement in the catastrophic Queensland flood. I disagreed with the opinion that it might be sufficient to show that operators SEQwater did not undertake a proper, impartial risk assessment.


The question of having to prove the “AGW is not true” in the Wivenhoe case may be a little extreme.

Rather, they would need to show that the operators had a revised policy that gave due weighting to the Australian Government’s Report. I have only read the results. It says here quite clearly

“Observed trends in exceptionally low rainfall years are highly dependent on the period of analysis due to large variability between decades.”

In other words the results are not robust. This is not surprising. The report only looked at period of 40 years, so could say little about the frequency of once-in-a-generation extreme events. It does not say that floods will never occur again, like they have in the area since time immemorial.

If the authorities did not undertake a proper risk assessment of future scenarios based upon a balance of existing knowledge, and the report, then the change of purpose from flood management to reserve storage facility is flawed. This is unless there is near certainty that a climatic shift has occurred in a definite way. This was because

  1. The Report clearly stated that its results were not robust, AND did not predict that extreme rainfall would never happen again.
  2. There is a further complication that may hold. If there is not an extreme climatic shift (or only a partial one, or are in a slow transition from one state to another), then an area with extreme floods in the past will still likely have extreme floods in the future.
  3. Further, the lack of extreme floods for an extended period might pose a greater risk of extreme flooding in the immediate future.

This whole thing becomes a complex matter of balance of risks. That is why they should have solicited expert opinion on risk management from different perspectives, and tried to eliminate any corporate or individual biases. Furthermore, a risk management body should have publicly stated this change of use of the Wivenhoe Dam, so that householders could make adjustments to their risk portfolios.



These conclusions are based analysis of unfolding news reports hype on droughts and floods; the hype that exists for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; and my developing analysis of Climate Change (see here, here and here) This comment is not intended as a legal opinion on the case, nor should it be taken as such.

Adelaide – a decline in extreme heatwaves?

Joanne Nova has posted data from Ian Hill on extreme heatwaves in Adelaide, Australia. To quote

It’s another mindless record used to remind the public to “keep the faith” and recite the litancy:

“Adelaide had it’s hottest start to the year since 1900 Sky news

Picking three particular days out of 365 and comparing them over a century is about as cherry-pickingly meaningless as it gets. But Ian Hill went back through the records to find that not only have there been 79 heatwaves in Adelaide since 1887, but there have been 51 heat-waves that were hotter since 1887.

I have done a bit of number crunching of my own, that is quite revealing. Higher temperatures are meant to lead to more extreme heatwaves. Using Ian Hill’s figures Adelaide is providing an exception. Hill’s definition of a heatwave is 3 or more consecutive days where the maximum temperature exceeds 38oC. I have downloaded the figures and categorised by decade. There are two ways I have analysed this data. First is by the number of heatwaves per decade. Second is the number of days per decade.


There are a number of points.

  1. The temperature data only starts in 1887, so the 1880s are probably more significant.
  2. The current decade might be more significant.
  3. Last decade, beginning 2000 was no more significant than the decades 1890s, 1900s, or 1930s.
  4. The 1990s was no more significant than the decades 1910s and 1920s

Is there, however, a revival of extreme heatwaves in the last twenty years?

Nope. Just a couple of extreme years in 2008 and 2009.


Tamino on Australian Sea-Levels

Tamino attempts a hatchet-job on a peer-reviewed paper on Australian Sea Levels. Whilst making some valid comments, it gives the misleading impression that he has overturned the main conclusion.

The sceptic blogs (GWPF, Wattsupwiththat, Jo Nova) are highlighting a front page article in the Australian about a peer-reviewed paper by P.J. Watson about Australian sea levels trends over the past century.

The major conclusion is that:-

“The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.”

The significance is that Watson shows a twentieth century rise of 17cm +/-5cm in Australia, whilst Government policy is based a sea level rise of up to 90cm by the end of the century. If there is deceleration from an already low base, then government action is no longer required, potentially saving billions of dollars.

Looking for other viewpoints I found a direction from Real Climate to Tamino’s Open Mind blog. Given my last encounter when he tried to defend the deeply flawed Hockey Stick (see my comments here and here) I curious to know if this was another misdirection. I was not disappointed. Tamino manages to produce a graph showing the opposite to Watson. That is rapid acceleration, not gentle deceleration.

How does he end up with this contrary result? In Summary

  1. Chooses just one of the four data sets used. That is the Freemantle data set.
  2. Making valid, but largely irrelevant criticisms, to undermine the scientific and statistical competency of the author.
  3. Takes time to make the point about treating 20 year moving averages as data for analysis purposes. The problem is that it underweights the data points at the beginning and the end. In particular, any recent acceleration will be understated.
  4. Criticizes the modelling method, with good reasons.
  5. Slips in an alternative model that may answer that criticism.
  6. Shows the results of that model output.

Tamino’s choice of the Freemantle data set should be justified, especially as Watson gives the comment in the conclusion.

“There is evidence of significant mine subsidence embedded in the historical tide gauge record for Newcastle and a likelihood of inferred subsidence within the later (after the mid 1990s) portion of the Fremantle record. In this respect, it is timely and necessary to augment these relative tide gauge measurements with CGPS to gain accurate data on the vertical movement (if any) at each gauge site to measure eustatic sea level rise. At present only the Auckland gauge is fitted with such precision levelling technology.”

That is, the Freemantle data shows the largest acceleration towards the end and this extra acceleration might be because land levels are falling, not sea levels rising.

The underweighting of recent data is important and could be dealt with by looking at shorter period moving averages and observing the acceleration rates. That is looking at moving averages for 19, 18, 17 years etc. If the acceleration rates cross the 20cm a century rate with the shortening of the time periods then this will undermine Watson’s conclusion. Tamino does not do this, despite being well within his capabilities. Until such an analysis is carried out, the claim abstract in the abstract that “(s)hort period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 … are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record ” is not undermined.

Instead of pursuing the point, Tamino then goes on to substitute Watson’s modelling method for an arbitrary one plucked from the air, with the comment

“Finally, we come to the other very big problem with this analysis: the model itself. Watson models his data as a quadratic function of time:

.

He then uses  (the 2nd time derivative of the model) as the estimated acceleration. But this model assumes that the acceleration is constant throughout the observed time span. That’s clearly not so. ”

Instead he flippantly inserts a quartic equation, which gives the time-varying acceleration (the second derivation) as a quadratic function against time.

There are some problems with a quadratic functions as a model against time. Primarily it only has one turning point. Extend the graph far enough and it reaches infinity. So at some point in the future sea levels will reach the sun, and later the rate of rise will be faster than the speed of light. More seriously, if this quadratic is the closest fit to all the data series, it will either have, or soon will have, overstated the actual acceleration. If used to project 90 years or more ahead, it will provide a grossly exaggerated projection based on known data.

On this basis I have edited to give all the inferences that can be drawn from rising sea levels in Australasia.

That is, a pure maths exercise in plotting a quadratic equation on a graph, unrelated to any reality.

An alternative to this is to claim simply that there is not sufficient valid data, or the analysis is too poor draw any long-term inferences.

An alternative approach is to relate the sea level rises to the global temperature rises. Try comparing Watson’s graph of rate of change in sea levels to the two major temperature anomalies.



First it should be pointed out that Watson uses a twenty year moving average, so his data should lag the temperature data. The strong warming in the HADCRUT data in the 1920s to 1940s is replicated in Fort Denison and Auckland sea level data. The Lack of warming in the 1945 to 1975 period is replicated be marked deceleration in all four data sets from 1950 to the 1970s. The warming phase thereafter is similarly replicated in all four data sets. The current static phase, according to the more reliable HADCRUT data, should similarly be marked by a deceleration in sea level rise from an already low level. Further analysis of Watson’s data is needed to confirm this.

There is no reason in the existing data to believe that Watson’s conclusions are invalid. It is necessary to play fast and loose with the data and get lost in computer games models to draw alternative inferences. Yet if a member of the Australian Parliament says legislation to cope with sea level rise should be withdrawn due to a new study, the alarmist consensus, (who have just skimmed through Tamino’s debunking), will say that the study has been overturned. As a result, ordinary, coastal-dwelling people in Australia will continue to endure real hardship due to legislation based on alarmist exaggerations. (here & here).

Keynes, Hayek and Global Warming

Jo Nova points to the excellent Keynes versus Hayek rap videos and compares with global warming views. My own observations are more to do with the nature of theory.

To compare Keynes & Hayek, I believe that we need to separate Keynes from the mainstream Keynesians. Keynes saw theory as a means to get the policy he wanted. It was the Keynesians (starting with John Hicks’ IS-LM analysis) that started the modelling approach. Both Keynes and Hayek eschewed the mathematical modelling of modern economics. In this Keynes would be closer to the perspective of GLS Shackle than Keynesians

  1. Keynes saw the economic system as being essentially unstable. There was no tendency for the economic system to tend towards an optimal equilibrium. Rather it could get stuck for long periods with high unemployment. This seems to parallel to the notion of tipping points. The Keynesian multiplier The parallel in CAGW theory can be seen in the positive feedbacks and tipping points. When Bob Carter says that climate is homeostatic (or Warren Meyer at climate-skeptic uses his ball in a bowl illustration), they criticize the climate models for being Keynesian. I would think that the Carter/Meyer view of climate is similar to that of Hayek on economic phenomena. Climate is essentially chaotic, having only general empirical regularities. However, it has tendencies towards equilibrium. Please note that Hayek occupies a position close to Keynes this issue. Walrasian General Equilibrium with perfect knowledge and instantaneous leaps from one equilibrium to another is an extreme caricature of more mainstream economics. Here Keynes v. Hayek is more apt for the views on climate.
  2. Keynesians view all the essential features of the economic system as being essentially knowable, capable of being reasonably represented in mathematical models. Hayek calls this a “pretence of knowledge” (the title of his Nobel Prize lecture), as although we may know essential features of the system, the relationships are highly complex and changing. The problem is not just lack of measurement, it is having data that is capable of being modelled in order make manipulation of these variables possible. In economics, the manipulation is control of macro economy. In climate, it is to control the global average temperature.
  3. Keynesians believe that a few major measures are sufficient to describe an economy. CAGW theorists believe that the global surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 are key measures. Hayek questioned whether such variables were meaningful. CAGW theorists are on much shakier ground than the Keynesians here. Bob Carter points out in his book that the stored heat in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of that stored in the oceans. When it comes to stored CO2 the problems are even greater.

But when it comes to the rhetoric of global warming, the analogy should not be with Keynes, but with Karl Marx. Climate models give true scientists perfect insight into the real nature of climate. Those who are on the outside are delusional and/or are either knowingly, or subconsciously, acting as lackeys of the oppressive class. In Marx the oppressive class are the bourgeois, in climate alarmism they are Big Oil.

Julia Gillard’s Carbon Taxes– An ineffective policy

Jo Nova claims the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, lied to the Australian public by being circumspect about a carbon taxes, then when in office to introduce a carbon tax to be followed by cap and trade.

Betrayal of promises is to be expected and welcomed if to meet changed circumstances. For instance new taxes to close a deficit brought on by a recession. But in this case nothing has changed. However, there is a much better reason for Australian’s to oppose the policy – it will inflict economic pain and hardship for little or no returns.

The political argument for the introduction of the policy is that we should meet international obligations. OECD countries “need” to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to constrain CO2 levels to around 550-600ppm. It is claimed by the IPCC & the Stern Review that this can be achieved by at a cost much less than the costly consequences of global warming. My example below suggests that a gasoline tax of 6.5 cents a litre would be almost totally ineffective. It would only serve to reduce living standards. Yet this is the start of CO2 reduction policies, when there should be some easy wins. It is as bigger inroads are made that reductions in CO2 should become more costly. Unless more effective policies can be devised, the CO2 reduction policies will leave us and future generations worse off than if nothing was done. Therefore, those who believe in the impending climate catastrophe, but are policy realists should join the climate sceptics in opposing the introduction in Australia of a carbon tax and carbon trading.

I try to explore demonstrate the case for climate change mitigation policies graphically here and which the policy will never link

A Carbon Tax on Gasoline

Consider a motorist in Australia who travels high distances in an old, inefficient truck. He travels 30000km a year and consumes a litre every 6km (6km/l or 17mpg in British terms). So the cost of 5000 litres used will increase the fuel bill by AU$325. If there are no gasoline taxes in Australia, fuel prices will be around $1.20 per litre, so the motorist will already be paying $6000 per year for fuel and (if he is lucky) $2000 for insurance, other taxes, maintenance and depreciation. So the tax will add 4% to his motoring costs.

At a more moderate level, consider a British example (in Australian dollars). Somebody has a medium sized car that is three years old, travelling 10,000 miles (16,000km) per year at 40mpg (14km/l). Fuel is $2 (£1.30) per litre , so costs $2280 for 1140 litres. With no serious maintenance issues, tax, depreciation, insurance and servicing cost around $4500 per annum. Total costs (rounded) are $7000 per year. A 6.5 cent carbon tax will add $71.25, or 1% to this bill.

For a newer car the percentage increase will be lower. Upgrade the specification and the percentage will be lower.

As real incomes rise people are able to afford more luxury. Compare the typical car in Australia with say Brazil, or Brazil with an African nation. In Brazil the best-selling cars have mostly one litre capacity and low specification. Many cars new cars still do not have air conditioning or electric windows. A carbon tax will take people in the reverse direction a long way before they will give up the utility of a private vehicle.