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.
Trash utter Trash, My 8 year old grand daughter could ask better questions.
Bill Derryberry
“the University of Georgia climate scientist ”
Why have I thought all this time she was at Ga Tech?
My advice is just take the poll. If you have doubts about a choice of answer, just pick the one that will pi$$ off Michael Mann or Gavin the most.
Just sent SciAm webmaster this:
Sirs
I have been made aware of the poll regarding Judith Curry.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25
The poll is appaulingly designed and exhibits most, if not all biases, associated with opinion seeking surveys.
I refer you to the wiki article on opinion polling as a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll
I wonder at the motivation of producing such a non-scientific poll and cannot fathom why an organ such as Scientific American would allow such drivel on their website. Apart from the obvious fact that science isn’t determined by opinion polls, science is not served by publications such as yours glibly biasing survey questions even if the motivation was genuine.
Faithfully
Tim Heyes
You asked for alternative suggestions. How about the following choices for Sci Am’s Q#2: “Judith Curry is:”. The selections are *not* exclusive. [Well, (g) should be exclusive of the others, but ignore that for the moment.]
a) a peacemaker.
b) a dupe of the IPCC.
c) a dupe of Big Oil.
d) an apostate.
e) a scientist.
f) a denier.
g) I’ve never heard of her.
Of course, you could “push” the poll the other way round:
Judith Curry is: (choose one)
a) a denier bought by Big Oil, who believes the earth is flat. And eats puppies.
b) a heretical monster for not believing the IPCC report.
c) a scientist.
“Once firmly in the mainstream, Curry says she was radicalized by the so-called Climategate affair”.
“Radicalized”? Really? I’m a little, er, sceptical Curry described herself in terms usually reserved for the process by which a young Muslim goes from regular kid to a volunteer for jihad.
Are these really the terms in which SA sees Curry’s openness to alternative theses and new evidence? Shocking if so – the sort of thing you’d expect to see in an extremist political pamphlet that sees everybody not “on-board” as utterly beyond the pale.
VERY slanted poll. I skipped the questions that didn’t have options I liked.
The only thing we can be certain of at this point is that whatever happens, Al Gore will find a way to build a bigger house.
If CO2 is so horrible, why isn’t nuclear power generation even included in any of the polls?
We can generate more power 24×7 using less real estate in a more environmentally friendly way with nuclear than any other technology.
The final question in this “survey” is “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?”
Right now 67% of respondents say “nothing”.
I think we’re done here.
Next?
Crap poll but given the results, you’d think a rush of WUWT readers answered it!
Ryan Maue says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm
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…..
She is receiving the same treatment as Juan Williams did on NPR.”
Darn, you beat me to it.
That’s what so great about our Constitution. We have a right to speak out without losing our head, literately. It will be a shame when we lose that right.
Despite the many comments that this is a skewed poll, I would say that the answers so far (as of 6:30 PM Oct 16 MDT) show an overall skeptical / realistic point of view in catagorizing the overall answers.
I would agree it was a poorly designed poll.
I am surprised Joe Romm tipped Anthony on this. I wonder what he thinks of the poll results so far??? Was he expecting answers to show an overall alarmist point of view???
We have here Judith. Who will be Holofernes?
It wouldn’t let me skip questions. And it is not a well-designed poll. I would have liked “none of the above” as an option for several of their questions.
The poll demonstrates perfectly the tendency by opposing sides in this debate to caricature each other. It’s almost like the aim isn’t dialogue but rather to buttress existence stereotypes.
If ever a poll inadvertently proved PRECISELY what skeptical scientists have been complaining about the warmist community, this was it.
EPIC FAIL
(and, no doubt, its creator can’t even see the point we’re all making).
This is what I said to Scientific American:
This is an unscientific, abusive and biased survey.
The question that says “What is causing climate change?” is a problem for four reasons:
1. It assumes that climate change means “warming.”
2. It assumes that that answer is already known.
3. It asks for you to give an answer as if taking a survey will prove which answer is correct.
4. It assumes that one of those answers is correct.
The question asking “What policy changes do you support?” does not include expanding nuclear power. This is called False Options. This makes the question biased toward solar and wind power which in reality does not work on the scale that is need for national energy use.
The question “How much would you be willing to pay?” is fear mongering and playing on people’s guilt.
The question asking “What Judith Curry is” is abusive name calling.
Your magazine is called Scientific American, if you are writing for scientists consider that scientists are not stupid. If you are in this to make money by writing for the general public, consider changing your name to Public American. The general public does not usually buy things that have the word “Science” in them.
I suggest posting your replies to SI here as well as on their web site, incase they decide to delete or censor them.
Reply: Sport Illustrated? Swimsuit issue? ~ ctm
kramer,
What are you saying??
“Curry is not a skeptic, I think she’s just opening her mind a bit to the points our side makes that have merit.”
They ALL have merit !! That’s why we make them.
Dr. Curry is a true Scientist – with a capital “S”. Mann et al are arrogant snake oil salesmen who would sell thier souls for some recognition.
O/T apologies:
[apology accepted, now find an appropriate thread, perhaps tips and notes? ~ ctm]
A very poorly constructed poll, much like the models and especially the policy. It’s amazing that putative scientists can have such poor products. At least they allowed me to check off that warming is man-made, natural and solar, all three are in the mix.
Took it.
Interesting results so far.
I loved the question about the IPCC being corrupt. An overwhelming majority chose this one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I get the sense the questions were submitted to SA by Schmidt, Briffa, Mann, Hansen, and Jones. Sheesh, the questionnaire was so slanted it might well have been a yes / no poll that asked the following questions:
Should evil skeptics be discussing climate change? __Yes __No
Is Curry an evil scientist other climatologists should care about? __ Yes __ No
Do evil redneck deniers understand CO2 causes climate change? __Yes __ No
Could the illustrious IPCC be more perfect __Yes __No
Are evil skeptics concerned about the horrors of climate change? __Yes __No
Is 8C a reasonable climate sensitivity __Yes __No
Is a carbon tax better than cap and trade __Yes __No