Scientific American writes:
As a profile of Judith Curry in the November 2010 issue of Scientific American makes clear, the University of Georgia climate scientist has become an increasingly polarizing figure IN the past year or so.
…
Yet Curry herself is convinced that some of those facts are seriously exaggerated, and that the IPCC has failed to acknowledge the real uncertainty in the science.
…
She’s been denounced, sometimes vehemently, for her efforts.
So here’s the central question: Is Curry a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can’t or won’t?
…
Let us know what you think.
Here’s the link to the poll:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25
h/t to Joe Romm
NOTE: I should add that this poll is rather poorly designed. On that, Mr. Romm and I agree. Bear in mind that many of the questions are multiple choice, and more than one answer can be selected. You can also skip questions that you feel don’t offer a representation of your view. – Anthony
UPDATE: If readers would like to offer some alternative suggestions for question sets in comments, I’ll be happy to setup and run a comparison poll here. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What means h/t to joe Romm; are they asking him to take the quize ?
It should be up his alley; but it will likely be censored at c-r
Maybe it would be good to make poll of what people think of Scientific American being a schill for AGW hysterics?
It’s a troll poll.
Ignore.
Bill DiPuccio says: “The SA poll is fraught with false dilemmas. Most of the questions forced me to answers that I would never espouse. This polarization and lack of nuance is exactly the problem in the climate debate. If this is the way SA views climate science, I fear for the future of science!”
Well, they probably stopped hiring anyone but foaming-at-the-mouth warmists quite a while back, so what did you expect, science?
My ballot was already filled in before I could even vote.
Judy’s views on the IPCC process and climate change are not out of the mainstream or foreign to the climate scientists themselves. Yet, the views are foreign to the liberal mainstream media which has been consistently provided with well manicured press releases from National Labs, universities, and the IPCC that dovetail perfectly with their ingrained liberal bias / worldview. When someone in the liberal elite establishment (which Judy could be described as), tells the ruling class to “shove it” and volunteers information out of turn or against the orthodoxy, then they must be destroyed.
She is receiving the same treatment as Juan Williams did on NPR.
What a bunch of loaded questions.
It did not in any way allow me to express how I actually thought about the subject.
Somebody is manipulating the poll… First I saw 40 skipped questions and now it is changed to 3. WUWT?
Very unscientific poll from Scientific American. Without reference to 451 or thought police as it might get our current political leaders another model to adjust, why is Scientific American trying to vilify Judith Curry. A disgusting effort from a corrupt tabloid.
The poll is a fitting example of the editorial direction of the new NATIONAL Scientific American INQUIRER format.
Very sad for the once esteemed magazine…….a casualty of the politicization of “science”.
John Silver says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:20 pm
It’s a troll poll.
Ignore.
LOL. Brevity is the essence of wit. You nailed it in four/five words. LOL
Silly but fun poll – I took it just because.
You know I dropped my subscription of many years to Sci Am over their zombie/brainless reporting and presentation of CAGW when I wised-up after Climategate.
I wonder if they (and the rest of MSM) are starting to wake up to the fact that Climategate and the popular delusion (not to mention madness of crowds so-called scientific consensus) that is CAGW are great stories and if these stories were reported upon fairly and objectively it might just increase the relevance of their publication and increase circulation. I won’t help them though. They get no more of my money. I’ll just keep reading WUWT.
Anyhow, you guys publish all my “letters to the editor” and I appreciate that. They never did.
The last question (and maybe more questions) is (are) impossible.
“8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?”
* a 50 percent increase in electricity bills
* a doubling of gasoline prices
* whatever it takes
* nothing
I’m not against lower fossil consumption and think some price increases are relevant, but these suggested are too large; too much market intervention. All four alternatives are wrong. Maybe Scientific American wants us who support Judith Curry to chose the last alternative, so they can say that we lack moral?
I did chose “nothing”, but I’m for to do something. I’m sure that 50 or 100 percent increase of prices isn’t needed. (Is “whatever it takes” a more modest alternative? I don’t think so 😛 ) For me the question is impossible, and – frankly – stupid.
This poll represents the current state of “Consensus” on climate change. One either agrees with the one sided question and expresses concern and understanding of the catastrophic nature of AGW, or you’re an ignorant hick with kooky beliefs. Skepticism and objectivity has given way to acceptance and elitism in academia around the world. We need more Judith Curry’s and less of scientists keeping their heads down and not making waves to proctect themselves from possible ridicule. The long lasting damage from CO2, is to science, not the climate.
“You can also skip questions that you feel don’t offer a representation of your view”
That might have been true at some point but it isn’t now. I skipped the questions which had no reasonable response and the poll was rejected. I got little notes like the ones you get when you fail to enter your billing address when buying something. I have copied and saved all of the questions for future reference. They are proof that the increasingly misnamed Scientific American is opposed to scientific inquiry. File name: Bogus Sci Am Poll
Push poll indeed, very poorly done Judith deserves better…
George,
FYI…………….. I think h/t = “hat tip” 8-\
Dumb Poll!!!!
At moments like this I turn to: Yes, Prime Minister!…
Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want
Whoever wrote up that survey ought to be ashamed of themselves on two counts: being Manipulative; and, apparent ignorance of the scientific method; and, ignorance of politics. Other than that it was OK — as I ignored it after I saw how bad it was!
michel says:
October 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm
“She’s like one of those faithful Bolsheviks who died under Stalin, for only being 99% behind him.”
Priceless!
I did as much of the poll as I could, but man if thats the best Scientific American can do I’m gobsmacked. I used to eagerly await my fix of SA, but I can see why I stopped.
That is a truely woeful set of questions.
As an afterthought. Watch for the press release about how the Scientific American poll proves that skeptics are evil morons.
Exactly. Every question has an anti-AGW answer. Check those, and let’s embarrass the heck out of SA.
/Mr Lynn
Same SciAm issue has an article by Scott Lilienfeld on confirmation bias. The article highlights paleoclimatology as a field in which the “data are incredibly messy”.
Interesting article, and a bit unexpected from the modern SciAm.
Fill in only one circle for each question.
1. Scientific American doesn’t know where Dr. Curry works.
0 True
0 False
2. Is Scientific American:
0 Inept
0 Incompetent
0 Illiterate
0 All of the above
3. Which school employs Dr. Curry?
0 UGA
0 Ga State
0 Ga Tech
0 Haven’t got a clue. Will drive to Florida through Alabama to avoid contaminating Georgia’s sacred soil with my ignorance.
See … anyone can write up a silly poll … takes no skill at all. No wonder it looks like SciAm’s future looks dim.
Dr. Curry has the neutral scientific attitude that is badly needed in today’s politically embroiled arena.
The next president needs to hire her for Science Advisor.