The awarmist ANU sponsors a questionnaire on “climate change” which lacks a definition of “climate change”. The study, “Understanding Beliefs About Global Climate Change”, is allegedly unbiassed, with “no specific agenda”:
Purpose of the Study: This project addresses how governments, businesses and communities might build a sustainable future. […]Potential Benefits: This study creates an opportunity to help provide policy implication guidelines for enabling a sustainable future.
A “sustainable future”: forthcoming events which can then be maintained, or times to come which will then remain the same?
One question asks, “Do you think that global climate change is occurring at present?” (Well, of course, the world’s climate has always changed and, for as long as we have a climate, always will.) Another question asks respondents to estimate the extent that “climate change has been a cause of […] Changing weather patterns”. (Hmm, that’s a trickier one: a change in climate might well effect a change of weather, I suppose.)
One question asks, “Do you think that global climate change is occurring at present?” (Well, of course, the world’s climate has always changed and, for as long as we have a climate, always will.) Another question asks respondents to estimate the extent that “climate change has been a cause of […] Changing weather patterns”. (Hmm, that’s a trickier one: a change in climate might well effect a change of weather, I suppose.)
Notice that there is no provision for a respondent to answer “I don’t know,” or, “it depends on what you mean by ‘climate change’, you galegnathous thickheads.”
The full survey can be seen here.
UPDATE I: I sent an e-mail to the ANU’s Prof. John Roberts asking why the survey failed to define “climate change”. I shall add any response I receive.
UPDATE II (16 May): Prof. Roberts has kindly responded:
UPDATE II (16 May): Prof. Roberts has kindly responded:
Thank you for your comment on the survey that my colleagues and I are conducting at the ANU regarding “climate change.”
I do take your point about the desirability to define “climate change” before gathering people’s attitudes towards it. This was indeed an option that we considered, but decided against it.
The primary (but not only) reason for our decision is that it is the perceptions of different stakeholders in which we are interested. The expression climate change has a considerable amount of social usage and we are interested in the degree to which different groups in the community feel that is an issue, consistent with their perceptions of what the term means, to them.
