The Lewandowsky participation question

UPDATE: There are so many respondents (thank you) and since it is clear that about 97% of WUWT readers hadn’t seen/participated in 2010 Lewandowsky survey, that we’ve added a second thread to get the most important part of the data.

You can still record your participation/non-participation below in the question form, but if you DID PARTICPATE in 2010 please also see this new thread:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/14/the-lewandowsky-participation-census-re-booted/

People who previously answered that they DID participate in 2010 are encourage to drop a note in comments at that new thread.

At the suggestion of Steve McIntyre, I’m posting this request because we know that both AGW proponents and skeptics alike read WUWT daily. It therefore is the most broad reaching venue to ask this simple question:

Did you participate in the Lewandowsky conspiracy opinions survey anywhere in the year 2010 on any blog? (if you are unfamiliar with it and don’t know if you did/did not,  read Lewandowsky’s paper here)

There are two steps: First I ask you to do the poll below, then leave a comment with your usual handle in the comment section signifying your answering the question.

Note that unlike the Lewandowsky poll, safeguards are in place to prevent vote stuffing.

Step 1: Answer the question below

Step2: Leave a comment in your usual handle/name below stating your answer in Step 1 (note Steve’s re-boot at the top of WUWT to leave a comment in the other thread if you did participate).

This will be a sticky top post for a few days. Please ONLY LEAVE COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION YES/NO. Most others will be deleted. Thanks for your consideration – Anthony

About these ads

922 thoughts on “The Lewandowsky participation question

  1. I can’t see many AGW proponents participating in this – not the honest ones anyway. But I guess we’ll see.

  2. Sceptic. Never heard of this survey until the last two months. I did not participate in something I did not know of.

  3. I am truly amazed that so few people (warmists in particular I guess) have done so little research on their own to try and understand Climate Change.
    As a former Green Party member and voter I understand their concern for the planet, but to just listen to the media / watch movies such as An Inconvenient Truth etc, without doing due diligence is plain stupid.
    The media feel the need to promote catastrophe – they have to make a profit for their shareholders. As for Al Gore – well, the less said the better. Let him slide into history as a teller of fairy tales.
    It takes very little research to understand that the Earth has been warmer than present most of the time since the last Ice Age ended.
    How did the Vikings manage to grow enough hay to feed their cattle through winter without a warmer climate then? It’s certainly not possible now to do that in Greenland.
    We all know that the truth will always come to the surface and the Warmists will be shown to be “the sky is falling” people.
    It’s time their leaders showed some common sense and helped the rest of these sheep to understand the truth.

  4. My vote was: I’m a skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewadowsky Survey in 2010, mainly because the year 2010 passed by without me being aware of «the Lewadowsky Survey» at all

  5. Well I screwed up massively on this one. Trying to do too many things at once with insufficient medication.

    I thought the poll was about the CURRENT survey so I said that I had taken it and was a skeptic. Didn’t leave a comment or a handle, and afterward realised that the poll was about the 2010 (original) version not the current one.

    Is there a way to back my idiocy out?

    REPLY: Not in the data now, but later now that you’ve mentioned it. You wish your answer to switch to #2 from #1 correct? Edited the text to make that 2010 distinction in your face obvious. – Anthony

  6. Getting psychologists involved in the debate on climate science is an indication of how polarized the discussion is. There is a simple reason the climate consensus folks are losing the debate with the general public…they refuse to debate. It’s that simple.

  7. I did not have relations with …. oh wait, wrong question ;-)

    Skeptic, I did not participate in Lewandowsky’s poll, and did not see any reference to it at the time

  8. I`m a skeptic and I did not participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010, but I did participate in the follow up on WUWT this month.

  9. I’m a skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010.

    I did however email him to suggest noting that many NASA astronauts had publicly proclaimed their skepticism about CAGW, in thye light of his cretinous survey. Oddly, he didn’t respond. Frankly, if this sort of shit has ANY credence in the world of Academia, then it is time to shut all our Universities down and start again from scratch.

    Lewandosky and his peers are sick.

  10. Is there a way to back my idiocy out?
    REPLY: Not in the data now, but later now that you’ve mentioned it. You wish your answer to switch to #2 from #1 correct? – Anthony
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Correct.

    Either that or create a new category for people with poor reading comprehension and put me in that :-)

  11. Skeptic who did not participate.

    P.S. And also had searched my 2010 emails to make sure that I had not missed receipt (or circulation) of Hanich’s E-mail, to confirm that this was not a survey of which I should have been aware.

  12. I participated, but I don’t recall where I found the link. I don’t typically read the AGW proponent blogs, as they don’t allow open discussion or dissenting opinions. Don’t recall which email address I used, but I only took it once.

  13. Skeptic, neither participated in it, nor even saw it.
    Perhaps it would have been helpful to have a slot for the ‘undecideds’?

  14. I selected option 2- (skeptic and I did NOT participate in the Lewandowsky survey). Classification wise I fall into the “lukewarmer” category.

  15. I’m very sceptical of CAGW and I read WUWT every day and follow some other blogs like Climate Audit and Climate Etc. pretty routinely and I never saw anything about this survey until the paper came out. So I did not participate of course.

  16. I did not participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010. I never heard of the survey until I recently read about it here.

  17. Skeptic, did not become aware of the poll until it was all over, but would not have participated in any case, as questions other than climate questions held no interest for me. Why waste time with that nonsense?

  18. Skeptic here, and didn’t participate — I think I must have been too busy reading all about those other juicy conspiracies such as moon landing, and 7/11….(sarc.)

  19. I am skeptical of the hazards of CAGW and I DID NOT participate in the Lewadowsky Survey or any similar survey in 2010.

  20. I am a skeptic and did not participate. I was unaware of the original poll despite being a daily reader of a range of leading skeptical blogs.

  21. Although I have been a regular visitor to WUWT and and avid admirer of posts and comments alike, I have never felt worthy of commenting until now. No, I did not know diddlysquat about said survey.

  22. I am a skeptic and I did not participate because I was instructed by Bushitler not to reveal Krycek’s secrets.

  23. No.
    I never heard of Lewendowsky, nor participated in any online survey other a recent scientific literacy test referred from WUWT.

    I am skeptical that there is sufficient evidence based on rigorous scientific inquiry that indicates a clear cause and effect relationship between any human activity and the earth’s climate. I am also skeptical that the influence of the sun’s behavior is fully understood. I am suspicious that climate science is ideologically driven by anti-industrial pseudo scientist n’ere-do-wells.

    Lewendowsky’s first line in the abstract is false.

  24. skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010

    I agree with the research and findings of scientists, physicists, astronomers, engineers etc.. that show Natural Cycles are by far a greater influence on earth than the trace of anthropogenic CO2.

  25. I am a Skeptic and active on most skeptical blogs for many years. I did not see the survey and did not participate.

  26. I am a sceptic and I am a daily reader of WUWT. (Usually twice a day!) I never heard about this poll before and I did not participate in it.

    Regards,
    STamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  27. Skeptic Never hear of Lew.
    Not interested in soft (social) science,
    It seems this survey has in in built bias towards sampling the political, rather than the sciency, blog viewers.
    Which criticises neither as the questions are specifically addressed to analyse neither.

  28. I’m skeptical about what fraction of climatism IS science. I never heard of Lew, or his poll, and did not take it.

  29. Daily reader of WUWT and several other influential sceptic blogs. Read nothing about Lew’s survey and only became aware of it recently. I did participate in Scott’s replication survey for fun.
    BTW proudly ‘denier’ of CAGW in the Prof Lindzen mode

  30. Skeptic and did not participate. Having looked at the questions last week, the survey design was abysmal. Almost all questions showed strong pre-belief about how the world works. The questions revealed more about the survey designer than the survey taker.

  31. I’m a skeptic and did not participate in the survey. But I’m sure there’s a conspiracy to discredit honest psychologists who are just trying to make a crust, and I’m sure it’s funded by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Macs. And Big Foot. And Big John, Big Bad John. Sorry, too early in the morning.

  32. Skeptic, did not participate.
    (When I first began to comment here, I briefly did so as “Shawn”. Should I do the survey again as “Shawn”? The answer will be the same.)

  33. more soylent green! says:
    September 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    I participated, but I don’t recall where I found the link. I don’t typically read the AGW proponent blogs, as they don’t allow open discussion or dissenting opinions. Don’t recall which email address I used, but I only took it once.

    Absolutely skeptical (or is that ‘contrarian’ now?) and I found many of the questions quite odd, and reading into them, offensive.

  34. Statistically, does it really matter how many people did not take part in the survey? The only thing that is important is how many took part and if they were a random sample (and if their answers were honest).

  35. A first I mistakenly selected the first option (to which my mind somehow automatically added the word “NOT” even if it’s not there) and I was within a fraction of a second of clicking before I realized what it said. The overwhelmingly most common reply, which is the second, should be placed on top to prevent this.

  36. Skeptic & didn’t know of the poll until I saw it at CA. After reading the poll questions, would not have taken it anyway.

  37. Anthony, I am pretty certain that what almost happened to me will happen to a lot of people. The second option should be on top to prevent this.

  38. Nope. I’ve been skeptical of this preposterous bogosity since about 1981, and Dr. Lewandowsky would flee the continent rather than ask me for my input on any survey of his.

  39. Skeptic. Didn’t participate. Having now seen the “Have you stopped beating your wife”
    questions, I suppose had I seen them in 2010 I probably would have chuckled at the stupidity and clicked to something else.

  40. Skeptic. Never heard of the poll until it popped up on WUWT, so did not participate in 2010.

    Did fill out the poll when it was re-created by A. Scott.

  41. Skeptic did not participate or even hear about poll and wonder how many AGW religious zealots believe in the rival “alternative 3″ moon landing conspiracy. If they believe in that one then they would strongly disagree with the poll’s intended moon landing conspiracy theory.
    I do not believe in either of the two opposing moon landing conspiracy theories.

  42. I am a skeptic. Found the poll recently and it was so poorly organized, and the questions so poorly phrased, that I quit without answering them.

  43. Skeptic, did not participate, still waiting on the check from Big Oil. From my point of view, a hopeful rumor, from the Pro-AGW side, a conspiracy theory.

  44. Jack Linard – skeptical about everything including common conspiracy “theories”. But not so naive as to believe that there are no conspiracies that impact us materially,

    I had (fortunately) never hear of Lewandowsky before the topic arose here a week and a half ago..

    May Lew fade back permanently into well-deserved obscurity.

  45. Skeptic. Did NOT participate in 2010 survey.

    Notes:
    1. It would’ve been better if “Skeptic” had been defined.
    2. While I read WUWT daily, I rarely comment so it’s not likely you’ll find my name/handle familiar.

  46. I’m a skeptic and I did NOT participate in the Lew 2010 survey, and responded with this in today’s poll. I did participate in the WUWT survey last week, and I’m not clear on whose that was and what the results and outcome were. [?????]

  47. Swedish-Austrailan skeptic who did NOT participate.
    May the Viking Gods (Thor, Odin and Freyr) help Lewdowsky … because his “science” can’t ;-)

  48. I did NOT participate in 2010. I follow about 15 climate blogs on a weekly basis and 5 on a daily basis and did not ever see said survey presented anywhere.

  49. Skeptic, and I did NOT participate in 2010. I follow about 15 climate blogs on a weekly basis and 5 on a daily basis and did not ever see said survey presented anywhere.

  50. I’m a lukewarmer, but closer to a skeptic than a proponent…especially in the proponents’ eyes. I did not participate and never even heard of it until recently despite reading Tamino’s blog off and on in 2010.

    -Scott

  51. I’m a skeptic, i did not participate….

    Still looking for the radial button which redirects funding from pseudo scientific hacks in western Australia => to fund better climate observations and data access.

  52. SUGGESTION: We know that lots of people didn’t reply. It would be more helpful to ONLY hear from people who did participate.

  53. I am an AGW sceptic and I did not participate in, let alone see Lewandowsky’s survey in 2010. I would point out that I am not just a casual sceptic, but take the time to attend anti carbon tax protests, have a submission on record with the joint select committee reviewing the carbon tax and read and comment on a number of sceptic blogs. If I didn’t see Lewandowsky’s tripe in 2010, then it is fair to say he made no real effort to contact or engage with sceptics.

    It pains me that Lewandowsky is an Australian citizen, and that Australians may be judged by his actions. Lewandowsky is a waste of skin and he is breathing other peoples air.

  54. I have yet to hear of a sociological poll which does not have a specific result in mind, inside or outside of climate science.

    Sociology is all horseshite galore anyway.

    Pardon the expression.

  55. I’m very sceptical of AGW scientifically and did not participate in the Lewandowsky conspiracy opinions survey.

  56. Depends on the definition of skeptic 8-)

    Skeptic, did not participate.

    Perhaps SkS’ well-used time machine could help me participate, rather than just being useful at editing past comments.

  57. Interesting, there is 18 on the first choice. I had near by accident clicked on vote without changing the setting. However, I caught my error before I hit vote. I am a skeptic and did not participate.

  58. Well you can rule Me out then, because with the questions in that poll the Lew put out, it’s like he’s a border collie herding sheep into a pin. So no matter how you answer it you go in the pin anyway.

  59. I am a practitioner of math/science and I did not participate in the really stupid poll (recently exposed as such)! Absolutes about complex histories and situations really set my teeth on edge.

    In 2010, I regularly visited WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, (visits to each site were more than twice a week). I occasionally visited Bishop Hill, JoNova and No Frakking Consensus (About once per week – two weeks for the latter sites. Once a month or so, I’d visit Lucia’s site.

    I had already decided that visits to Real Climate was a useless undertaking as they were vicious, condescending and definitely lacking on science. That apparently is the only warmista pro CAGW site I’d visited on my own moore than once.

    I do not remember any of these sites mentioning this survey back in 2010. Other sites that leaned towards questioning CAGW findings I visited when links took me there.

    My handle used back then was TedK and changed when WUWT started using WordPress logon IDs. Since my WordPress account handle is ATheoK, I’ve used that handle since then amongst the climate/weather sites. Both handles are derivations of my name and recognizable to my friends.

  60. It seems no one had seen this survey prior to the results being published.
    Did they just poll a bunch of sockpuppets to make it look legit?

  61. I am a sceptic and did not know of, and because of that fact, participate in the survey. I would enjoy participating in a “conspiracy theory” survey because I am also a sceptic about all the conspiracy theory topics which abound in Northern California. Here, our Liberals are true believers in many conspiracy theories, including jet aircraft vapor trails actually being the spraying of various substances to make them ill or mess over their minds. They also believe in energy company conspiracies to confuse the public about anthropogenic global warming, and that 911 and the Iraq invasion were right-wing excuses to get control over Middle-Eastern oil. Opposition to Smart Meters runs high – any health problem experienced by Liberals here seems to attach itself to the ill effects of low-level radiation immediately. There was also a campaign against irradiated meat, and there is an ongoing campaign against Genetically Engineered foods, including ones which are proven to prevent juvenile blindness from vitamin A deficiencies and those that combat world hunger by increasing productivity while reducing water, fertilizer, and pesticide use. All things negative are blamed on big business conspiracies and on globalization, which is considered the ultimate and primary big business conspiracy. The Left here appear to be demoralized and powerless against the dark forces of progress in science. As they accuse skeptics of rejecting science, they reject all science that does not fit their belief systems.

  62. STEVE MCINTYRE SAYS IN COMMENTS:
    SUGGESTION: We know that lots of people didn’t reply. It would be more helpful to ONLY hear from people who did participate.

    - – - – -

    Anthony/Steve,

    Some people might take your recent statement to mean you do not want them to take the poll if they didn’t participate in the 2010 Lew survey.

    I assume you mean you want everyone to take the poll but only want those that participated in the 2010 Lew survey to also write a comment that they did. Right?

    John

    REPLY: I’ve taken that out, we are going to do a re-booted second thread to handle that need. – Anthony

  63. I did not see any links to Prof Lewandowsky’s poll at the time, or I would probably have participated. For example I was a very early participant in the 2010 SciAm poll, which was similarly uncontrolled. Note that SciAm had over 5000 responses.

    The Lewandowsky poll seemingly was advertised in such a way as to avoid sceptics actually participating, as far as I can tell. At very least the publicity was so poor that it got very little uptake from the many readers of climate sceptic blogs…of which there are much more than of consensus blogs. That alone is curious.

  64. I’m skeptical of AGW because of my process control background. With a BS & MS in AeroSp Engr, I’m not anti-science at all. If our climate was dominated by positive feedbacks, it would have saturated to a runaway greenhouse state long ago. Our current ice age climate started 3+ million years ago when the ismus between Central & South America closed, changing ocean currents and allowing the poles to become ice covered. Since that happened, glaciations have been the dominate climate and interglacials the brief reprieves. Our current climate in much closer to the coolest level of the Holocene than the warmest (Holocene Optimim ~ 8,000 years ago). Our recent warming is definitely not “unprecedented” based on ice core and other proxy records in this interglacial

    In short, AGW is a hoax!

    Bill

  65. 508 comments later and I count 1 yes (2Kevin), 2 that checked #1 by mistake and 1 that took the survey but did not complete it. Out of 1080 votes so far, there are 21 that answered yes (took the 2010 poll) minus the 2 mistakes = 19 yes. Therefore 18 yes votes have not commented. 95% of those that answered yes to the question did not comment and apparently wish to not be identified. Are you inadvertently or by design conducting your own vote stuffing experiment?

  66. Skeptic – I at least glance through several climate related blogs, mostly skeptic or luke warmer sites.

    I did not participate in the Lewandowsky survey in 2010 (or any other year that I am aware of).

  67. Hi did not participate (as far as I can remember … but I have an open mind, and if someone shows that I did then I accept the evidence, but obviously I could have been abducted by aliens and it could have been the aliens, dressed as a walrus that answered the survey using a mind probe to illicit the answer … /sarc)

  68. I’m a skeptic (ie of the post-normal ‘science’ of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010

  69. And I’m a Skeptic, and didn’t participate as per Me first comment. So you can still count Me in then, I guess as per the latest amendment above!

  70. Skeptic, and did not participate in the survey.

    No longer visit warmist sites and therefore never encountered it in 2010.

  71. 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.

  72. Option 2 – never heard of the man till the latest caper. (Tried to post this comment earlier but wordpress is really annoying in not accepting my login so I’m trying another address – and ended up in the wrong thread. Grrr and apologies.)

  73. Skeptic, and never saw hide nor hair of the Lewandowsky survey on the sites I frequent – here, Jo Nova, Pointman, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, Archibald, Jennifer Marohasy plus others.
    I’m a NZ’er, and I’m ashamed an Australasian “expert” has such a biased view of the world. The Australians are not alone; we have our share of these zealots in NZ.

  74. I’m a skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010. I do not participate in polls, as I do not form my opinions on the basis of what other people think, and would not want to encourage the kind of mindset which does.

  75. No – Not only did I not participate, I didn’e even knew about it. What I do know however is that Lewandowsky is a fool.

  76. Semi-retired in 2009 and i’ve dedicated +40 hr/wk to study and writting about AGW for +3 yrs….
    Professor Loo is so far off the radar that i’d never heard his name before….
    he’s made UWA the CRU of down under….may he reap what he hath sown…

  77. Skeptic, did not participate. Mind you, I tried out the re-do on another blog a few weeks ago, but quit after a couple pages because the questions are so mealy, i.e., densely worded and obviously agenda-driven. Questions should be plain and neutral but this survey’s questions made me feel like I was wearing someone else’s shoes whilst answering questions, so I quit. I daresay this would have been a common skeptic experience.

  78. Opps…….. @ 6.24pm – “didn’e” should be “didn’t” and “knew” should be “know”.

    Sorry Anthony.

  79. skeptic – I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010
    (Note: for the record, my ‘usual handle/name’ has been “Russell C” here, but my signup with WordPress late last year forced me to choose “therussellcook”under my primary email address, which I have also used here on a few occasions. I have recently left comments here using the slightly more convenient Twitter sign-in procedure, “Russell Cook (@questionAGW)”, too.

  80. I am a truth seeker and I did not cooperate with Professor Lewandowsky and his vile and nonsensical, so-called “survey”.

  81. It has now been 6 hours since the first reply on this thread. There are now over 648 responses. Over 100 per hour.

  82. I am a GW skeptic, an AGW skeptic and a CAGW skeptic. I never saw and did not participate in the above-mentioned survey.

    RTF

  83. I do not remember seeing the survey and I am sure I did not participate. If I would of I would of not taken it seriously because the questions are so ridiculous.

  84. Was not invited to participate and so being in blissful ignorance did not do so.Can’t imagine what good it would have done if I did. Which I didn’t;

    Kindest Regards

  85. I’m a skeptic and I never saw the survey –and I’m around enough on these blogs that I “should” have seen it.

  86. I’ve been a sceptic since 2008 when I found Climate Audit, WUWT, Bishop Hill and the Air Vent et al. I started professionallyas science graduate and while I’m a sceptic, I also have all my senses and intellect in good order. I look at the above sites several times a day – every day and read many news sites as often. I did not see or know of this questionnaire.
    Summary: sceptic ; no.

  87. Voted option 2. Know the truth. CO2 is good for the environment, and can’t even come close to having as great an influence in regulating the planet’s energy stores as plain old water. Never saw the poll on any site.

  88. No, Snake Oil Baron, I’M Spartacus – and therefore question authority. Really a lukewarmer, but because I’ sceptical of climate (and any science). But I did not have sex with than survey – Mr Lewan(dow)sky. Apologies for the humour in poor taste, but one can only laugh or cry at this episode, and there are too many things to weep over!

  89. Sceptic. Did not participate nor was I aware it existed.

    Having seen the questions I wouldn’t have responded if I did know about the poll.

  90. I’m a skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010. (Clicked same on poll above.)

    I don’t remember everything I did online 2 years ago, but I filled out Lewandowsky’s poll a couple of days ago and I can say for certain I never answered those crazy and intrusive life-satisfaction questions before. What the hell did THEY have to do with climate science? The guy is just telegraphing that he has some very tenuous and tendentious connections he is trying to make.

  91. I’m beginning to suspect that maybe some of the ones who did see the survey (on those cowardly New Anti-Civilized-World CAGW Religion sites), must’ve voted a lot, each… (pregnant pause again)

  92. I am a skeptic [not a denier!]. I did not take part in the Lewandowsky poll in 2010. Nor since. Not even if he threatened to beat me to death with my own shoe would I do so.

  93. Skeptic , did not participate.
    Never heard of Loserdowsky until the last few weeks. May I suggest he take whatever degrees in science he claims to have earned and make the humble suggestion that he line the hamster cage with their parchment because he has failed miserably in his pursuit of science. He is an outright farce and a disgrace. But this is nothing new for the Church of Gore membership.

  94. skeptic – did not participate.
    I was asked a ‘trick question’ several months ago by a government AGW person:
    Q – “Do you think smoking causes lung cancer?’
    A – “Dont think that there is any doubt that it does.”
    He looked puzzled – I had given the wrong answer for one that is known to be skeptical. ;)

  95. Skeptic did not complete survey but, had I done so, would have been highly critical of the construction of questions which would not have passed social psych 101 when I studied!

  96. I’m asking all of my friends on IRC to come here and vote for the first option (yes/yes) just to screw with the results.

  97. Didn’t see it, didn’t do it, didn’t know about it.
    As an aside, anyone who isn’t sceptical has no business in science, which does raise issues about non-sceptical ‘pro-science’ blogs, but I guess this is neither the time nor the place.

  98. I’m a skeptic and I DID NOT participate in the Lewandowsky Survey in 2010 96.96% (1,434 votes).
    This is my 2nd response in this thread (this time in response to the poll)

  99. Am sceptic and have never heard nor read anything of the Lew poll until you & others brought the topic up, ergo did not participate.

    Brgds from Sweden
    /TJ

  100. Perhaps if Mr Lewandosky were to try again I would do the survey???? It would be interesting to know what I missed???

  101. I am generally a sceptic and selected Option 2 i.e. I did not participate in the poll (but I did participate in the 2nd poll put up by WUWT about 5 or 6 days ago or so.

    Cheers

  102. Skeptical, As the name implies. Didn’t Participate in 2010. Never heard of it until it was recently reported here. dT

  103. I’m a sceptic, did not take part in Lew survey, and didn’t even know about it until the recent discussions.

  104. I have said I did not do the survey – but I have done surveys when I’m bored and then forget about them. However, I think I would have remembered a survey as stupid as this one.

  105. Scpetic and I did NOT participate in Dr.Lew’s survey. However if he’s considering spending a part of his grant to participants I could change my mind.

  106. For the sake of good science, I actually tested the survey here to see if it would take a second poll from me. I got “Thank you, we have already counted your vote.”

    I too would never have completed the original survey had I ever seen it. It’s like, “today we don’t do trial by torture since that is sooooooooo yesterday. We do trial by rigged survey instead”.

    Anthony, I hope you are handing over the results of this survey to Steve Mc. I reckon he has enough material here to wipe the floor with Lew many times over. Wipe the floor, did I say?

    :)

  107. I’m a tarred and feathered proponent, from this sort of skeptical point of view. In all other respects (and from all other points of view), I’m a (non-scientific) skeptic.

  108. I am a sceptic, I did not know about the survey until the results were first publicised and I certainly did not participate in it.

  109. Mod – delete my second comment on the rebooted thread. I had that post open in two different browsers and commented 2x by accident.

  110. I view CO2 as one of the essential ingredients of life, in no way a pollutant; I find the thermostat hypothesis compelling, such that claims against it must be considered extraordinary–requiring extraordinary evidences; and I knew nothing of Lew’s survey and didn’t participate. Cold kills, warmer is better.

  111. I’m a sceptic and I did not participate in that “poll”, having not seen it anywhere at the time it was put on for public participation.

  112. Skeptic. Never saw the poll. Definitely would not have taken part even if I had: it seemed biased and open to abuse. I’ve seen too many such polls being invaded.

  113. I am skeptical of the science behind CO2 causing global warming/climate change. I did not participate in the poll.

  114. Skeptic. Did not participate in 2010 survey. Did participate in Climate Audit’s recast of the survey in 2012.

  115. Skeptic. I never saw the survey. Oh darn, I see my Masters degree in History on the wall at my university office must have blocked my view.

  116. FTR, I am a skeptic but did not participate.
    (Unlikely in the big world with a great many skeptics that I would be on their list despite my activism.)

  117. How do you define “participate?” I participated in the sense that I definitely saw it and started it, but I don;t think I finished it. (See my comment on the reboot thread). I ticked, “I’m a skeptic and I did participate” but I don’t think my responses will have been recorded or included.

  118. Skeptic, did not participate
    (not sure I’ve already sent a post here, but absolutely sure I was both skeptic and WUWT reader before 2010)

Comments are closed.