Comments on: Push polling! ACF climate survey rigs itself

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

ACF can squirm and wriggle over the exact intent of the ‘survey’ but this kind of dumb stunt can only weaken what little credibility it musters these days. The organisation’s brain trust is probably already wondering how it so easily shot itself in the foot.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Gawd, this article is a real whine isn’t it. And now I’m whining about it too. Bring out whinging Wendy eh? What wrong with consulting your supporters, and sorting the 1:9:90 with 1 and 9 being the very and somewhat activist/motivated and the other 90 being neutral and passive. That’s good information to gather. If you don’t agree with any statements then - God help us - write on it. Are you that sheepish? Is that the real problem of projecting your own submission to every other force in society, wage slave etc? Or how about this radical idea - leave it blank. So they put mind altering hypnotic control patterns on the envelope again eh? Those devilish clever greenies ngo global conspiracy again. At worst the survey is condescending, at best it shows some initiative. Wake up you pack of dufus. You won’t have a planet to nit pick on at this rate. And yes I have a science degree for God sake, and I trust my doctors within reason, and I think cynicism might just kill the lot of us/kids.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ray, while the ACF may have done the wrong thing in this case that is of no relevance to the reality of global warming. It puzzles me why people want to see this as a left/right political issue. It is not, it is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence which we are obligated to respond to appropriately.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If the ACF can so easily resort to these tactics I would be stupid to believe anything they say. That is why, David Sanderson. Not every reasonable specialist in this field would agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Moreover even the majority who do accept that it is real differ greatly in its extent and in the likely repercussions. That having been said I personally believe that the industrialised nations have, for at least 2 decades now, had their head in the sand. We should act and we should act now. That does not mean I would want to be associated with the ACF however.

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Good work, Doctor D.
Keep the bastards honest.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thanks to the insincerity, or should I say deception, of one-eyed bodies such as the ACF and the ABC, the hypothesis that increasing greenhouse gas production is the major cause of global warming, has been unquestionably accepted by thousands of people, including many politicians and journalists. However, there is a lack of convincing evidence to support the hypothesis. If the two aforementioned bodies were sincere, they would have no hesitation in acknowledging that there are many who oppose their views.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The ACF haters are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, they stuffed up and yes, they shouldn’t do it again. But lets get a bit of perspective here. The ACF does have an illustrious history of protecting the environment and raising environmental awareness. Foolish mistakes made by the over-zealous, which did little more than waste some people’s time, should not blind us to the huge achievements which all Australians have cause to be grateful for.

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What’s to comment on. Stephen Downes has said it all.And their explanatory foot note is bullshit. What;s the point of a survey if it’s only sent to the converted and/or true believers.
I suppose that the ACF, WWF, and Greenpeace perform a function but they are not my cup of tea.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The ACF has an illustrious history of putting organisations that truly help with conservation issues offside. This ‘poll’ is just another example of them at their best.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This article makes some valid points. Being on the side of the angels does not excuse any organisation from behaving unethically in regard to polling. I am an ACF member myself but I am sometimes sceptical of the polling results put out by environment organisations. There is room for suspicion that the questions have been structured in a way that get the desired response. Certainly industry lobbies do the same thing but that, of course, does not justify unethical behaviour from those singing from gods hymn sheet.