Quote of the Week – ‘Cooked up’ surveys lack integrity

qotw_popcornJo Nova writes:

The so called “experts” (say like Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook) either don’t understand what drives skeptics, or they know but do their best “not to accidentally discover it” with irrelevant surveys, loaded questions, poor sampling and bad methodology.

(I’m going with incompetence). Lewandowsky, after all, tried to figure out the motivation of skeptics by asking people who hate them if they believe Diana was murdered. Not surprisingly he didn’t find out that about half of skeptics are Engineers, but he did find 10 anonymous people on the Internet who said the moon landing was faked. This is the kind of result only government funded science could achieve.

More here: Almost everything the media tells you about skeptics is wrong: they’re engineers and hard scientists. They like physics too.

About these ads

18 thoughts on “Quote of the Week – ‘Cooked up’ surveys lack integrity

  1. I would LOVE it if there were some kind of warmist paparazzi, to show the world photos of warmists who drive cars, heat their homes, use electricity, etc. Especially cars, what do the warmists drive? Look at the parking lot of the EPA in Ann Arbor, Michigan, lots of SUVs.

  2. Can someone else do a better more objective and thorough survey to get a more true number of die hard believers and skeptics. We complain about the 97% consensus, which we all know isn’t accurate, but is anyone doing a survey to counter it? If the only survey out there says 97% then that is the only number that is going to be stated. We complain about the terrible flaws of that survey, but no one appears to be publishing anything else. Go make a thorough and objective survey so we can see the real numbers are probably closer to 50:50 and we can have something to counter when people bring up that 97% crap. Until then we have nothing to complain about. At least they went out and made a crappy survey.

  3. A survey created and administered by those who have no technical qualification to conduct such surveys and, what’s worse, have a vested interest in the results, is hopelessly biased and should rightfully be disregarded until and unless proven valid by those qualified to do so.

  4. I was told in college that the difference between scientists and engineers is that engineers are required to take economics.

    • @Neo – Quite right. As engineers, they learned they could move the world with a big enough lever. In economics, they learned it costs too much for the parts.

  5. Kit Carruthers says:

    February 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    From that article on the survey:

    ” The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.”

    The surprising part of that survey, in my opinion, is that 79% attributed the atmospheric CO2 level increase to man-made sources. I would have expected about 80% or greater would agree that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing “partly” to the increase of man-made sources, but entirely?

    Otherwise, nothing else is surprising.

  6. Neo and Phil,

    The correct way to look at Engineers and Scientists is that Engineers know that anything you cannot use to build something that works in the real world is speculation.

  7. ‘he did find 10 anonymous people on the Internet who said the moon landing was faked. ‘
    and the irony is they supported ‘the cause ‘

    You only have read what the what hard-core AGW proponents think about nuclear power, GM , not to mention the ‘fossil fuel funding , well organised, right wing , etc etc’ conspiracy against ‘the cause , to see who really is into seeing ‘conspiracy’ everywhere.

  8. “at least they went out and made a crappy survey”

    “he’s a nice guy when he’s sober”

    “his heart is in the right place (the end justifies the means)”

    I don’t know which is worse…the “anything is better than nothing” approach, or the “make excuses for the transgressor” approach.

  9. John Boles says:
    February 26, 2014 at 10:19 am
    I would LOVE it if there were some kind of warmist paparazzi, to show the world photos of warmists who drive cars, heat their homes, use electricity, etc.
    ==================================================================
    Hypocrisy is a basic tenet of Liberalism.

  10. Anthony,

    Assuming the survey completed by the Scottish Sceptic is correct and a large percentage of skeptics are engineers, what can be said about engineers who are not skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis. Who are they? Here are a few suggestions.

    1. Engineers who have a vested interest in the CAGW scare such as someone working in wind generation or on electric cars.

    2. Engineers who believe they have a vested interest in the CAGW scare such as a nuclear engineer thinking (mistakenly) that what’s bad for fossil is good for nuclear.

    3. Engineers whose social circumances put them into contact primarily with people who believe in the CAGW scare.

    4. Engineers whose career ambitions have allowed them to assume a belief in the CAGW scare as part of their corporate camouflage.

    5. Engineers who are not aware of the controversy surrounding the CAGW scare.

    Are there more? Is my bias showing?

  11. Neo says: @ February 26, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    I was told in college that the difference between scientists and engineers is that engineers are required to take economics.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You were told wrong. Engineers have to take a heck of a lot more math and physics. (At least that was the difference between Chemists and Chem Engineers at my school. The Chem Engineering was a five year course compared to four years for Chemistry. I took the same courses they did except for that extra math and physics.

  12. An old boss of mine used to say that engineers can do for 10c what any fool can do for a dollar. The exception to this rule would be engineers involved in supplying wind and solar energy.

  13. I was told in college that the difference between scientists and engineers is that engineers are required to take economics.

    I was told at college the difference between scientists and engineers is that scientists deal in theories and engineers have to make thing that actually work based on those theories.

  14. You guys need to understand something , Holdren wrote a book called eco science a eugenics book , the original con for this climate rubbish was call SECRET IRON MOUNTAIN REPORT , white paper , JFK warned us all after reading it . It is all a cover for spraying chemtrails under the guise of geo engineering , its been happening for yrs with the green lobby behind it , now trying to claim it isn’t as the scandal spreads .. Run by the USA . Rosalind Peterson Presents Chemtrails at UN Session on Global Warming http://vimeo.com/87564470 listen to what she says and this is recent . IT IS THE SMOKING GUN AGAINST THESE HYPOCRITES , LOOK IT UP ON YOU TUBE ALSO FOR EVIDENCE . ENJOY.

    [This site will block further "chemtrails" comments. See policy. Mod]

Comments are closed.