Survey on participants of climate debate

The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum have been working to produce a survey on the background of participants in the climate debate. Now, after some excellent feedback, the survey is ready. The url is:

Please help us by filling in the survey and passing onto all those who are interested in climate on line.
The aim of the survey is to understand the nature and background of those interested in the climate debate on line. It will provide an invaluable insight into the education and work experience of participants, test the relevance of politics in forming views and assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
Mike Haseler

This entry was posted in Survey. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Survey on participants of climate debate

  1. Derek Alker says:

    Is the survey only for professionals?
    Re politics and their relevance to the climate science debates. Geo-politics is the motivating force behind AGW, via the UN / IPCC and Agenda 21. The national politics of AGW is for the pigs with their noses in the trough thus created by the geo-politics. Pigs = politicians, academics, bureaucrats, greens, etc, etc, etc.
    Environmentalism was re-packaged by Maurice Strong and sold to us all via the UN and IPCC, we, man, are told we are destroying the planet, so, you have to pay taxes to save the planet. That’s it. It’s that simple.
    The system / society we have at national level simply does not have protections built in against attacks by geo-politics, There are protections built in for national politics but these are constantly under attack / corruption. The USA’s constitution being the best example of how to protect the people from “them” nationally speaking.
    But, geo-politics wise, we are wide open. Membership of the UN means agreeing to compulsory dictates from the UN. There in a nutshell is the issue, that is why the AGW scam took off as it did. The rich and powerful got richer and more powerful ,we have / will / are paying the bill. to “save the planet”.

    • No the survey is not intended for professionals, but in part it is trying to test the observation that where commenters have stated their experience or employment, these have all been in one particular area.
      On the geo-politics, I tend to subscribe to the “cock-up theory” rather than conspiracy of history. This theory is that things happen usually without anyone really meaning them to happen. So, I would suggest that the remote observation, the internet, the rise of environmentalism and an unlucky chance rise in global temperature all came together. NASA created the means to monitor, environmentalism created the concern, and gaia hiccuped at the wrong time.
      Other factors played their part: the unionism in the UK caused Thatcher to take harsh action against industry, then North Sea oil prices rose, making UK industry uncompetitive, and causing it to lose influence in an environment where a single national broadcaster dominated so that the pro-public-sector & environment culture of the BBC dominated not just the UK media coverage but by its international news – the world.
      Then we have a green movement fighting anti-nuclear, which lost its cause when the Berlin wall fell, found it again in anti-globalism, which morphed into anti-capitalism, and when combined with the already anti-industry culture in the UK, quickly became anti-energy-using-industry and then anti-fossil-fuel and then anti-CO2.
      So, CO2 was a way to combine the left wing and environmentalists AND BIG BUSINESS around a single cause …. one which had a solution which gave fossil fuel and energy companies a way to make a lot of money from wind. SO WHY WOULD THEY COMPLAIN – rising energy prices = rising profits!!
      So, paradoxically, we had a coalition between BIG business and anti-capitalists, between environmentalists and oil companies. And all of them supported by the anti-industry media in the UK – which on the right manifested itself as “anti-unionised industry” and on the left was “anti-energy-using-industry”.
      Then add to that the rise of China — which totally innocently funded the UEA and was present at the 28gate meeting in the form of a Chinese delegate. Whose interest would it be in for the west to destroy all its industry? The Chinese certainly would not have minded the west shutting down its industry at the time it was starting to dominate the world economy – was it helped? Who knows?
      But rather than the UN, the main blame has to be levelled at the EU … after all only the EU now supports bringing back Kyoto! (it died a year ago)

      • Derek Alker says:

        I have to wonder if you would change a lot of that reply (to a more international view) after reading Tim Ball’s book? Most of it was not a surprise or new to me, and niether is his interpretation. It is much a long the lines I have come to too.
        No point in arguing though, time will tell.
        btw – EU practicing policies for, and a puppet of, the UN. It was said a few years back that, the really clever people at the EU had left and gone to the UN…

Comments are closed.