Survey participation invited: Does fear of CO2 cause extreme voting?

Please note updates below

A few weeks ago, U.K. writer, James Delingpole declared that he would be running as an independent “anti-windfarm” candidate in a forthcoming by-election. He recently summarized his position:

If there were a single plausible argument in favour of wind power, my task would be a much harder one than it is. But there isn’t. The wind industry is so wrong in every way that to be against it ought to be no more contentious than being against paedophilia. Where wind is concerned we need to stop being Nimbys and learn to be Niabys: not in your back yard, not in my back yard, not in anyone’s back yard.

Delingpole is an eminently readable writer whose irreverent tone might not be appreciated by all. While his popular book, Watermelons is sometimes over the top (as are some of his blog posts), I found it to be an enjoyable read. But in the over the top department, Canadian climate modeller, Andrew Weaver beats Delingpole by a country mile.

In 2007, Weaver declared that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fourth Assessment Report would reveal climate change to be a “barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles”. Very “conservative” and a perfect illustration of the “evidence-based” science on which his preferred policies, i.e. the urgent need for a war against Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), should be implemented.

Weaver, who has rarely chosen to hide his political activist lights under bushel, has now declared that he will be a Green Party candidate in British Columbia’s spring 2013 provincial election.

Not surprisingly, Weaver failed to correct the reporter at the Victoria Times-Colonist who mistakenly conferred on Weaver and his fellow IPCC authors the “Nobel Peace Prize”. In reality, the actual recipients of this increasingly devalued award in 2007 were Al Gore and the IPCC.

The IPCC is quite amorphous. This “Panel” is supposed to be comprised of the governments, not the scientists and modellers who do the much exalted “work”.

Although, in support of this particular “redifinition”, no doubt Weaver would heartily endorse fellow IPCC-nik Myles Allen’s November 2011 slip of the tongue:

The IPCC or us scientists, so to speak

Weaver has a long history of high-ranking authorship of IPCC reports, including that of Lead Author of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). In this latest edition of the “climate bible“, Weaver’s contribution will be to Working Group 1 Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility.

In light of his declared very green-striped political candidacy one wonders if he will have the decency to declare his obvious bias and conflict of interest and withdraw from participation in AR5 authorship. Any bets?!

For all that the general public have clearly indicated that “climate change” is very, very low on the priority totem pole, activist “scientists” such as Weaver – and more recently “psychologists” such as Stephan Lewandowsky – (not to mention anti-free-speech acolytes and lesser lights whose fear factory is currently in overdrive as a consequence of PBS having had the temerity to interview Anthony Watts) [Edit: completing this thought/sentence] continue to delude themselves that if they could only find the right communication path, the public will fall into line.

It is also worth noting that the MSM have been dutifully churning reports in which “climate change” is declared as the “cause” of the recent spate of “extreme” weather events. What is not mentioned in such reports (nor in the copious profliferation of “scientific” papers over the last twenty years) is that – apart from computer simulations and projections (which can hardly be considered as “evidence” for anything except a reflection of the modellers’ inputs) – there has been no empirical evidence provided which would even begin to suggest that human generated CO₂ is the primary cause, driver – or in CliSci-speak “forcing” – of climate change aka global warming aka the greatest threat to the future of our planet.

I would be extremely surprised if Weaver would ever declare that human generated CO₂ is anything less than the equivalent of a “barrage of intergactic ballistic missiles”. I would be equally surprised if Delingpole would ever declare that CO₂ – whether generated by humans or mother nature – is anything less than crucial for the survival of our planet.

What I’ve always found extremely annoying about election run-up political polls is that if at first they don’t succeed in getting you to declare your preferred candidate, they always insist on following up with well, OK … but if you might lean towards a candidate who would you choose (OWTTE).

If an election slate were to be limited to Delingpole vs Weaver, it’s probably not too much of a stretch to suggest that those who might favour one or the other would consider the opponent as “extreme”. But I wonder if there is a correlation (if not causal relationship) to be found in fear of CO₂ and “extreme” voting.

So, with all of the above in mind, and inspired by Lewandowsky’s (highly unscientific) survey techniques …

I invite you to step outside the earth bound voting booth and imagine a virtual constituency for which an election is pending. Your slate of candidates is limited to James Delingpole and Andrew Weaver. But – unlike any other pre-election poll in which I’ve ever been asked to participate – you may also choose “neither”. Please select the option that most closely resembles your views.

You may only “vote” once and you may only choose one option.

This poll will remain open until September 29**. By all means please don’t take my word for any details about the candidates and (unlike Lewandowsky) please do your own due diligence prior to casting your “ballot”.

** UPDATE 09/22/2012 05:06 PM PDT: Now that I’ve read the PollDaddy fineprint (and since I am using their “Free” account) the above should read “September 29 or 200 responses, whichever occurs first”.

But please vote, and invite your friends (and even some of your favourite enemies) to do likewise. No pressure ;-)

UPDATE: 09/29/2012 12:40 AM PDT OK, so when I looked at the PollDaddy fineprint (please see UPDATE above) I may not have noticed that I even had a “Survey” option. Poll results passed my anticipated auto-closure at 200 responses, which was exceeded earlier yesterday. In order to preserve my integrity (and that of my poll data) I have now closed the poll (sorry to disappoint those who arrived late and would have voted).

Analysis of the poll results is now underway … Details coming soon to a monitor near you.