Yet another survey conducted by John Cook of Skeptical Science ? Watch what happens to requests for the questions

This is off-topic, but very funny. Noah Smith blogs on economics, and has compiled a bestiary of trolls that afflict the econoblogs. With some rewording, this is applicable to climate science – especially the section labeled “Scientists.”
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/econotrolls-illustrated-bestiary.html
Enjoy.

I think it is impossible to look at this Lewandowsky work and not see the push to gut the concept of scientific knowledge as known since the Enlightenment in favor of a scientistic (in the Hayek use of word) social systems thinking use. Believe it or not I am dealing now with school districts implementing K-12 practices based on the Club of Rome’s notorious Limits to Growth from 1976. Even CoR repudiated the book but its use in the classroom creates desired future attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors so in it comes anyway.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/we-need-a-radical-change-in-our-mode-of-consciousness-even-a-new-sense-of-being-human/ is a good summary of this unified science approach in K-12 to gut Western science as traditionally understood, redesign the economy to reject fossil fuels, and control human behavior. All going on right now all over the world through K-12 mandates emanating from the UN ultimately.
And sunlight is the only disinfectant that can possibly stop this manipulation and theft of minds and our tax money. As you can imagine Big Business largely sees this as a chance for a Corporatist economy where they lock in their current places at the table.
This is the world and future Lew and others are building at our expense.

If you think it is a “neutral” survey — have a look at 13:
Which of the following best describes your view of global average Sea Level Rise (SLR) since pre-industrial times?
1) SLR has accelerated gradually to the current multi-decadal trend of ~3 mm/yr
2) SLR has been steady (~2 mm/year)
3) SLR has been small (<1 mm/yr) and steady for thousands of years
etc.
Is that just a way to get accelerated/accelerating into the discussion when drawing a curve with acceleration might be a stretch — but could be "negotiated" or "justified"?
There are other "interpretable" questions…

Hans Labohm says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I was informed that the whole exercise started to investigate the correctness of the dogma: ‘The science is settled. All scientists agree’.
I wonder why John Cook became an author?
Too much naivete on display.

Bart Verheggen,
Do you not understand that by not having a single scientific skeptic in your group, you lose all credibility?
It does not matter how perfect your questions are. By excluding scientific skeptics, and by inviting a mendacious propagandist like John Cook, you will be endlessly ridiculed, and deservedly so.
Why are you so frightened of having skeptical scientific input? You would be widely praised if you put together a group of 50/50 skeptics and alarmists to formulate the questions. Only someone who has his conclusions in mind prior to a survey would use your entirely like-minded group.

“Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:45:15 +0000
From: “Verheggen, Bart”
To: “Verheggen, Bart”
Cc: “Strengers, Bart”
Subject: Survey questions available on PBL website
Dear survey respondent,…”
What kind of person sends emails to himself first and then Cc’s others???

Hans and Bart are invited to discuss the findings about Rob van Dorland found in David Ross’ 12:21 PM link.
===================

“What kind of person sends emails to himself first and then Cc’s others???”
Well, on this narrow question I can comment. I do this all the time so that I have a copy of the email in my inbox. Sent items are not readily available on my blackberry, so this can make seeing the email easier. Why include everyone else on the Cc: line…no idea.

A survey of peoples’ subjective opinions has no mathematical validity and thus no scientific validity. The same is true if the respondents are scientists or laymen, or whether in the main they are honest within their own lights, or whether they are manipulators. Let’s take just one question and consider it’s implications.
Question Condition
1a What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century
can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric
greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosol
cooling)
Between 76% and 100%
Between 51% and 76%
Between 26% and 50%
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
There has been no warming
Unknown due to lack of knowledge
I do not know
Other (please specify)
Let’s say that I believe that the correct answer is 0. If I tick that box I immediately lump my opinion in with those who think that 25% is the appropriate answer, despite the world of difference between our positions. I am tempted to tick the next box down indicating less than 0% and I may, or may not give in to that temptation. Let’s sat that I believe that the correct answer is 25%. I face a similar problem – I don’t want to be lumped in with the fellow who thinks that the answer is 0. I am tempted to tick the higher box. Similar objections can be raised against most of the questions. If I believe 25% is correct but I also believe that the end justifies the means, then I may well tick 75% – 100%. This is not science and it is not mathematics, but it is what routinely passes as ‘statistics’.
The major fault with the approach is much more fundamental than wide ranging tick box answers. Sources of bias have not been eliminated. The respondents are not random but have been selected! Statistical analysis has fallen at the very first hurdle. Junk science, and you can run it through Excel or Open Office using the most esoteric filters that you can find and you will be left with the junk that you started with..

At Mosh.
His actions, not mine,, …
If he wants to associate with John Cook.. More fool him !!!

The survey is another distraction from the divergence of temperature and Co2. Surveys are not cogent to the discussion, are they?
They are losing on every front. Get back to your books and concentrate on something that actually matters.

Instead of doing science ……..they can do a survey and if it comes out the way they like it …… they can claim consensus !
Do these people get paid wages for what they Do!

Steven Mosher.
When a banker causes a $1billion waste of public money by dishonestly reporting interest rates, they get locked up for many years.
Climate Academics have caused a $1tillion waste of public money by dishonestly reporting temperature predictions. The only people who should want to talk to them is the police.

Altough, getting rid of him now.. its probably way too late…
Bad luck guys.
The stench of doggie doo is really hard to remove.

Here’s an interesting item from SS, looking how well people have predicted Arctic ice minima:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent-2012.html#commenthead

I agree with Steven Mosher here. We have an author of a paper who has come here and replied. I don’t care if its this author, Cook, Lewandowsky or the Mann himself.
In this house they should be treated with a minimal respect. Not because you agree with them, but because its the right thing to do. Take the high ground,
Respond with questions – tough ones are perfectly legitimate. But if you simply shout out people you disagree with when they do come here – there is no hope of dialog.
Here the association with Cook creates a pre-perception. It may or may not be accurate. That Bart took the time to come here and post, what seems a perfectly legitimate clarification, should be an invitation to ask real questions. Many who actually read the survey indicate it was, unlike others, much better done.
Regardless whether there is a potential bias in the author group – ask questions and make up you own mind if the overall work is legitimate and fair.
This place – with its strong and broad reach, and generally well informed readership – should be better than the others. You can be critical while also showing a basic civility and respect.
Again – take the high ground – and see what you can learn – one thing is certain, once you light the torches and fire up the tar and feathers, you aren’t going to learn a thing – other than how fast someone can, rightfully, run away..

Poor old John Cook, he is such an embarrassment to Australia.

A. Scott says:
September 26, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I have been an observer in this game for a LONG time. Normally, I would agree 100%. Turn the other cheek and all that. From my perspective, the alarmist contingent has been less than kind. Evil in fact. It must be said. Dirty tricks, altered posts on blogs, misrepresentation of skeptic points, lies of omission, interviews that end up being sucker-punches, newspaper articles full of lies, etc, etc. I was polite and cordial at all times. Now there are no cheek left to turn that aren’t bloodied and bruised from rigged engagements. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away before Charlie Brown realizes he is NEVER going to kick the ball?
This particular fellow created an “unbiased” survey by excluding any skeptics. How much more evidence is it going to take? He knew full well what he was doing. Can you see that?

After reading the questions and finding them agreeable I was about to say “credit where it’s due”, but no – why give credit to people for not being crap at their paid job? .That should be the norm.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/Climate_Science_Survey_Questions_PBL_2012_0.pdf
It’s a little tedious but they could go further and ask for each question the level of sureness, which I’ve seen sometimes. Right now it’s a case of Know (an answer) or Don’t Know any answer. Can permit, for example, “I believe the answer is A, and I’m Very sure of that”.
But still, this only covers questions pertaining to the direct influence/existence of AGW. Where’s the question asking how many climate refugees will eventuate from climate change? Food shortages, extreme weather fatalities, climate anxiety… so often that’s where the disagreement starts and where the label “denier” is pulled out even for those who have accepted an anthropogenic influence.

“Sean says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
Here’s some help with your email sig Bart…
Dr Bart Verheggen
Jackass”
So this is the type of thing that is approved by moderators ? I imagine if Lew had called Watts a Jackass everyone would be up in arms.

I find it fascinating, that after reading all the comments, no one has identified whether or not the “John Cook” named as an author of the study is actually the same culprit who deletes all and any commentary on the SKS(Skeptical Science) blog. That in itself is somewhat surprising seeing as one of it’s authors commented here earlier. If it is the same John Cook, than there are major problems already as it would make that study null and void.
A cartoonist does not a scientist make.
I also tend to agree that civility and fairness should be applied to people that one has come to loathe for their erroneous and obviously biased viewpoint. As stated, they are not going to discuss anything if we act the same way as those lunatics do on SKS (SS) and on other warmist sites. We should be above that.

Joe Public
Tambrands, Fitter.

This questionnaire is biased at Q1 and shows little professional attention to detail. I haven’t bothered to go further.
As Ken Harvey points out in Q1 (we get no further) we see lower answer categories of:
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
The design of this questionnaire forces anyone replying into categories which may not reflect their real view. There is absolutely no reason why a ‘Percentage: Please write in’ could be used to give the respondent an accurate reply. Then the final category ’caused cooling’ is junk. What can be less than 0%?. If it is 0% why should it cause anything in terms of cooling or heating?.
This is Kindergarden stuff!

And using ‘published, and peer-reviewed” when they KNOW the climate science peer-review and publishing is totally corrupted.. Sorry , but .. this is a nonsense survey, and with Cook’s involvement it is OBVIOUSLY aimed at some sort of propaganda outcome……..because that’s what he does.
TAINTED from the very start !!

Good thing I don’t play the piano !! ZB -> DZ.

If I ever participated in a survey such as this one, it would be to screw up their findings. It is more likely that I would not consider it worth my time and effort to even mess with it. A sufficient reason is found in the first question. The answer “Unknown due to lack of knowledge” does not allow me to specify the extent of lack of knowledge. There is a huge difference between a lack of knowledge on a personal level and a general lack of knowledge in the scientific community. I am assuming that, in this context, knowledge means verifiable understanding as opposed to a nice theory which some group agrees on.
I would also have been reassuring if there had been some questions how an individual should be regarded if he withholds raw data and information on methods. It ignores the possibility that there are some highly regarded (at least within their communities) individuals who know that their theories are not adequately supported by much other that personal bias.

FYI, the webpage with the survey questions is now 404 (not found).
Sounds like someone is covering their tracks.
Down the memory hole we go…

There was a technical problem. It should work again.

Below we (Bart Verheggen and Bart Strengers) reply to some of the more substantive questions regarding the survey questions raised in this thread. However, we will not discuss results or the survey sample at this point in time. We will do so when our manuscript has been accepted. For further discussions about the survey questions, please visit Bart Verheggen’s blog.
Ken Harvey asks (46), referring to question 1a
1a. What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosol cooling)
Between 76% and 100%
Between 51% and 76%
Between 26% and 50%
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
There has been no warming
Unknown due to lack of knowledge
I do not know
Other (please specify)
Ken Harvey wrote:
“Let’s say that I believe that the correct answer is 0. If I tick that box I immediately lump my opinion in with those who think that 25% is the appropriate answer, despite the world of difference between our positions. I am tempted to tick the next box down indicating less than 0% and I may, or may not give in to that temptation. Let’s sat that I believe that the correct answer is 25%. I face a similar problem – I don’t want to be lumped in with the fellow who thinks that the answer is 0. I am tempted to tick the higher box.”
Our answer:
This is indeed a dilemma. An alternative which we considered is to ask the respondent to provide a percentage themselves (i.e. as an open numeric question). This however would ‘force’ the respondent to provide a number which, according to many, would create the impression of much higher certainty than there is about this estimate. (Can we really distinguish whether this contribution is 81 or 82%? [or 2 or 3% if you wish]). It is clear that both options have pros and cons, but we believe that by making enough –but not too much- ranges available, we obtain relevant information about the respondents’ thoughts.
Robert of Ottawa asks (66):
“Question 2A asks: Has the trend in global average temperature changed in the past decade, compared to the preceding decades?
and offers the possible answer: The trend over the past decade is negative (i.e. cooling)
But question2b asks: What is your interpretation of the trend over the past decade with respect to the long term (multi-decadal) trend?
and does not offer the possible answer from 2A: “The trends are of natural cause”. Instead, it offers variants for Warmistas or don’t know.”
Answer:
Question 2 doesn’t go into causation (be it anthropogenic or natural); 2b is only about what the respondent thinks is happening to global temperatures on longer timescales. Eg the answer option to 2b “Long-term warming trend has changed as indicated by my previous answer” could be chosen to reflect the opinion that temps are cooling also on longer timescales.
A. Scott asks (72):
“Would you share a bit more detail about what the goal of your survey is – what you hope to find from it.”
Answer:
The objective of this study is to gain insight into how scientists, who have published on global warming, perceive physical science issues, which are frequently debated in the public domain. E.g. by investigating the extent to which scientist agree or disagree about these issues (both the big picture issues and the detailed aspects)? How are these responses related to one another? What can we learn from that?
DaveA asks (79):
“But still, this only covers questions pertaining to the direct influence/existence of AGW. Where’s the question asking how many climate refugees will eventuate from climate change? Food shortages, extreme weather fatalities, climate anxiety… so often that’s where the disagreement starts and where the label “denier” is pulled out even for those who have accepted an anthropogenic influence.”
Answer:
As explained on the PBL website regarding this survey, we decided to focus on physical science aspects of the public debate (mostly with a ‘skeptical’ signature): These ‘IPCC Working Group I’ topics are a focal point in the public debate and they form the foundations for further deliberation; for example, regarding impacts or response strategies. We chose to be as complete as realistically possible in covering the physical science aspects, acknowledging that that meant we could not include other aspects such as you mention.
Tim Welham (87) asks:
“This questionnaire is biased at Q1 and shows little professional attention to detail. I haven’t bothered to go further. As Ken Harvey points out in Q1 (we get no further) we see lower answer categories of:
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
The design of this questionnaire forces anyone replying into categories which may not reflect their real view. There is absolutely no reason why a ‘Percentage: Please write in’ could be used to give the respondent an accurate reply. Then the final category ’caused cooling’ is junk. What can be less than 0%?. If it is 0% why should it cause anything in terms of cooling or heating?”
Answer:
For deliberations regarding an open question or offering ranges as answer options, please see above in our reply to Ken Harvey. There is no right or wrong there, but multiple options with each their specific pros and cons. However, offering the wide range of answer options we do (even providing the option of answering that greenhouse gases cause cooling (i.e. a negative percentage), we believe we avoided a bias a much as possible. One could actually make the argument that these answer options have an inherent bias in the other direction, since the option that GHG by themselves are responsible for more than the observed warming (i.e. >100%; see e.g Huber and Knutti, 2011) has not been subdivided into multiple ranges. More people may deem the survey too detailed rather than not detailed enough.
Bart Verheggen and Bart Strengers