The Lewandowsky participation census, re-booted

Steve McIntyre provides this update:

The purpose of this post is to take a census of all skeptics who participated in the Lewandosky survey in 2010.

If you participated in the Lewandowsky survey in 2010, please comment below using your usual handle.  Also please include the site from which you linked to the survey (Deltoid, Tamino,…) if you recall.

If you did not participate in the Lewandowsky survey in 2010, PLEASE do not comment on this thread.

This thread is a re-boot of our first question here, which garnered so many responses in such a short amount of time that it will be difficult to find the respondents who DID participate in the hundreds of comments. Clearly, the point has been made that there were few who found the survey in 2010.

If you wish to record non-participation in the 2010 Lewandowsky survey, please do so at the original question here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/14/the-lewandowsky-participation-question/

=============================================================

Comments that are irrelevant/off topic will not be approved. Only comment if you DID participate in the 2010 Lewandowsky survey and include the site from which you linked to the survey (Deltoid, Tamino,…) if you recall.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Lewandowsky participation census, re-booted

  1. u.k.(us) says:

    It seems to be asking a lot of us, the unwashed masses.
    To recall voting in a phantom poll taken 2 years ago.
    Not sure where any of this is going ??
    How can any of the responses be verified ? Thread searches ?
    Anyway, you have my “handle”.
    For the record I am a skeptic, and don’t recall answering the questions in the poll.

  2. Steve McIntyre says:

    For good order’s sake, here is what I believe to the the present inventory:

    1) more soylent green reported participation on the other thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/14/the-lewandowsky-participation-question/#comment-1078127

    2) Paulw reported participation in a WUWT thread on August 30, 2010 at 2:30 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/new-wuwt-sstenso-page-now-online/#comment-469869

    3) WUWT moderator dbs reported participation as an inline comment to that comment.

    4) Bishophill commenter Jerry reported the existence of the survey in a comment at bishophill on Aug 30, 2010 at 4:09 AM unthreaded ( presently at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/unthreaded/?currentPage=647 but the page number rolls forward.)

  3. u.k.(us) says:

    Steve McIntyre says:

    September 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    For good order’s sake, here is what I believe to the the present inventory:……….
    ===============
    So, the survey was out on the net.
    Was it sent to any leading skeptic blogs, with the indication it was going to be the basis of a research paper ?

  4. Richard Allcock says:

    I’m a uwa staff member who took the survey after receiving it off the uwa staff mailing list. Halfway through, I stopped, appalled at the leading nature of the questions and the total inability to state your actual position (ie. you could only agree or disagree, strongly or not with a given statement). The world is surely more grey than that. Having stopped, I emailed Charles Hanich and suggested his survey needs re-writing and even volunteered to help him make the questions more scientific. He repsonded that they were standard questions used previously in the scientific literature and described them as “validated instruments whose psychometric properties were well understood” (paraphrased).

  5. En Passant says:

    I did the reposted WUWT Survey and am eagerly awaiting the analysed results.
    Some of the questions are unclear. For instance Smoking contributes to land adds greatly to your chances of lung cancer, but not all smokers get lung cancer and some non-smokers do. So, I rated it a ’4′, not an extreme ’5′ as there is some leeway. Yes, I know, that’s makes me evil and in the pay of big tobacco … please! I need the money.

  6. Steve McIntyre says:

    moderators, could I request that comments that do not report participation in the 2010 Lewandowsky survey not be approved on this thread and unresponsive comments e.g. En Passant and others be removed. This is supposed to be a census.

    [done ~moderator]

  7. I’ve been asked to re-post on this thread:
    Geoff Sherrington says: September 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm
    Open mind, I vaguely recall reading some similar questions then going to wash my hands because they questions were poor as dirt. Might have been a different survey, but I don’t usually answer emails of unknown origin.

  8. Arnost says:

    I came across the survey on Tim Lambert’s Deltoid site. I was curious as there was some discussion of it I saw elsewhere (not 100% certain but I think it was on Larvatus Prodeo)

    Like one of the posters above, I did not complete the survey as IMHO it was asking silly, and frankly distatestful questions. I beleive the question I quit at was the one about the US government intentionally introducing AIDS or such.

  9. Richard Allcock makes clear the need for another category: those who began to take the survey in 2010 and gave up.

    [Allowing a few more comments like Richard Allcock's, and this one; if there are too many, will leave them in moderation so as not to clutter up the thread ~mod]

    [No additional category or additional discussion of additional category is necessary for this. People who began the survey but did not complete are answering that they participated and to what degree~mod2]

  10. DGH says:

    a) I participated but bailed out as the questions got ridiculous and ridiculouser.
    b) Best guess was that I got there through SKS (and that I got to SKS from WUWT)
    c) I don’t think that the moon landing was faked

    PaulW also mentioned the survey here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/judge-blocks-cuccinelli-investigation-into-mann/

  11. johnfpittman says:

    I started it, and I beleive it was herein the comments. I did not get past the first two questions because they were leading (mis).

  12. Leo Morgan says:

    I did begin this survey. I abandoned it partway through. I think it likely that I commenced it at Tamino’s ‘Open Mind’, but at this late date I do not clearly recall.

  13. joebastardi says:

    I did participate, i believe from tamino’s

  14. DGH says:

    Pro-science. Took the survey.

  15. more soylent green! says:

    Skeptic, participated and completed the survey. I don’t recall where I found the link (perhaps JunkScience.com).

  16. Leo Morgan says:

    I see that in my post above, I failed to identify myself as the skeptic I am. I do so now. I note that Lewandowsky’s original questionaire, and by deduction his ‘paper’, would wrongly identify my ‘lukewarmer’ stance as being that of an alarmist.

  17. Steve McIntyre says:

    DGH, your responses are inconsistent. In one response, you say that you took the survey. In another, you say that you bailed out. Which??

  18. DGH says:

    Apologies for the confusion. I began the survey but stopped about halfway. My impression was that it recorded partial results.

  19. mick says:

    I’m Australian. I filled out their ‘survey’ in 2010 (via Tamino’s, I think). I felt the questions were such nasty, crazy political bs, that I paid them in the same coin by lying & filling it out with bs as artfully I could in response. I filled it out in entirety, but can only clearly remember weighing up whether submitting a response was worth it against giving them my IP address… I think there’s a fair chance Lew & co could have a slice of my baloney stuck between the leaves of their paper, but you’d need their IP address data to confirm against mine.

    And for the record, I believe CAGW is ‘real’, as they say… just that it’s a sociopolitical phenomenon, not a natural one. :-)

    (Mods please feel free not to post this if you need a firmer answer on participation. I won’t be offended.)

  20. Mike Jowsey says:

    I don’t imagine this will be published. My observation is that this is the first time I have seen such a regulated forum on WUWT. That’s all.

    REPLY: Its regulated to keep the signal to noise ration down. Steve is seeking data, comments that are irrelevant and not data are being removed, that’s all – Anthony

  21. John Doe says:

    ClimateChange:Lewandowsky
    Mountain:Molehill

  22. Jo Nova says:

    Two skeptics emailed me the survey in early Sept 2010. I tried it, but am almost certain I bailed out because I could not bear answering the questions. There is an outside possibility that I may have finished it.

    My comment to the first emailer included: “there are no “No opinion” boxes – no qualifiers. He’s asked a lot of simplistic questions that I want to answer with another question. ”
    “I think all he would show is that believers of AGW don’t understand much about free markets.”
    “I want to tick the option that says “This question is inane””

    I emailed a well informed friend and he wrote back: “He’s definitely trying to build a case that people who don’t think global warming is a problem are right wing nut jobs. You could stuff his research up if you wanted to.”

    One skeptic asked if I wanted to send over people to balance up the results. I decided not to blog it or pass the survey on in more emails.
    I remarked: “who wants to glorify it with responses?”

  23. joannenova says:

    I forgot to add, it was the Deltoid link I was sent.

  24. tim in vermont says:

    I vaguely remember this survey, after taking the new one, and am certain that I bailed on the old one. I only finished the new one out of gratitude to Anthony for this blog.

    How does one know “absolutely” what happened in the JFK assassination when the killer was killed himself so quickly under such strange circumstances? Not that I have any idea what happened but skepticism of the official report is not the same as believing that it was done by the cognoscenti, er, I mean the Illuminati or the mob or some other specific entity for which there is no real evidence. Some things are unknowable. Same with Roswell. It is unlikely that it is an alien artifact, highly unlikely, but not “absolutely impossible.” Perhaps what the survey measures is willingness to accept official findings as “absolute” fact, or as provisional explanations which have a higher likelihood of being true than some rant from a guy downtown wearing a clown outfit, err I mean a Green Party button.

    Doubt that helps, but I found the survey insulting at the time. Relevant blogs I read as a habit: WUWT, Motl, ClimateAudit, Discover (used to, anyway) if it was never offered on one of those, It was likely at some random blog like Tamino, etc that get linked to by alarmists in thread combat. For some reason Tamino rings a bell.

  25. Leo Morgan says:

    I apologise for re-reposting.
    You asked for the handles we used in the survey. I forgot to consider that that I might have begun the questionnaire under the handle ‘John-in-Oz’.
    I don’t know if you even care in the case of those of us who bailed out before completion, but I mention it for what it’s worth.

  26. James says:

    I can not remember which site the survey was on but I certainly started the survey. I did not finish it because the survey quality was amateurish. Some questions did not allow an ‘I don’t know’ response which would have been appropriate. I didn’t want to complete a survey which forced me to indicate an answer which did not reflect what I believed.

Comments are closed.