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
Here’s an answer I’d like to see added to Question 2:
“( ) Judith Curry is a scientist who is more worried about her B.S. footprint than her carbon footprint.”
Those morons cannot even read a bio. Dr Curry is a respected scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology where people know what they are talking about.
I think this was really nice for SA to so quickly remove any shred of lingering doubt I may have had about not continuing my subscription.
BWD
My view is that Scientific American has stopped being scientific. Judith Curry she’s a sacrificial lamb so to say.
I agree with the comments about the lame nature of the questions especially #7
7. Which policy options do you support?
1) a carbon tax
2) increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development
3) keeping science out of the political process
4) cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits)
5) cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers
Three of the options (1, 4 & 5) are the same bloody thing!
Like Cookie Monster said #3 should be keeping politics out of science.
So by process of elimination I chose #2 as the least offensive.
I felt obliged to take the poll seeing as Judith has stuck her neck out and will need all the support she can get. While I agree with neither peacemaker or dupe as an accurate reflection of her position (open to evidence and willing to engage in intelligent dialog). Maybe that is too many vowels for SA but I took peacemaker.
Very poor poll by SA. Bad poll. Bad, bad poll. Now don’t let us catch you doing it again.
The Poll can only by answered by engaging feeling rather than thought. Any value it has is in showing that the majority of respondents, many of whom will be engaged scientists (a useful poll questions which was missed), consider AGW to be bunkum and that Curry has in some degree extracted herself from the sea of corruption and group mentality upon which the Climate Change political agenda is based.
It is interesting to consider what the responses to a mind engaging series of poll questions might produce in this WUWT reply list. My guess is that it would be interncine warfare between sceptics of different shades and views and areas of expertise. That of course is how it should be. Open, public dissent based upon the very real uncertainties involved and with absolutely nothing to base policy upon or make money from or to usefully position oneself in the “higher” echelons of some learned “scientific” society or other by arrangement with ones allies.
Take the Poll, but not seriously.
3. What is causing climate change?
– Greenhouse gasses from human activity
– Natural processes
– There is no Climate Change
– Solar Variation
When was Solar variation separate from other Natural Processes?
Question 8 How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?
Just a little presupposition there? After all you can’t answer the question without accepting the existence of “catastrophic climate change”
The whole thing is a “Snow Job”
I’m sorry, but until Judith actually comes right out with the statement that the figures she uses to derive hurricane frequency, intensity, potential damage could, may be, possibly, wrong, and that GISS, HADCRUT, CRU adjust, alter, fudge whatever the true readings so her results could be, may be or are totally wrong, anything she writes is still tainted by association.
Judith is recognised as one of the main players in Hurricane prediction, her predictions are used to develop insurance levies for deep sea, coastal, onshore oil wells, the cost of insurance plays a major part in the cost of delivering crude oil to refineries.
Just above this post is one that states that there have been no major hurricanes impacting the continental USA this year. Where is Judiths prediction?
Sorry, Judith can write for as long as she likes on her site, and I will read it, but until she admits that her predictions have been based on fudged, altered, adjusted data that does not relate to the reality of what has occurred, she is still in the Team.
Giggle.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_blnN-QHR9C4/S3TYUKr-QhI/AAAAAAAAASY/qP67oTrxZCo/s1600-h/standarizedthought.jpg
Okay, I was thinking about how this poll was ridiculously biased to mocking skeptics and making warmists feel useful somehow, so how about this as a start for a fairer poll (pretty sure this one gives everyone a say):
1) Climate Change is:
a. A serious issue that we need to address urgently
b. A concern that requires some attention
c. Not something that requires our attention.
2) Climate Change is caused by:
a. Human emissions
b. Nature
c. Some combination of a and b
d. Climate is within norms, blame is meaningless
3) Climate Science is:
a. Responsible, realistic, mainstream science
b. A discipline in its infancy, prone to misinterpretation from time to time
c. Belief driven, akin to witch doctors and voodoo.
d. Not even bogus, but fabricated for political reasons
4) Is there a credible debate on Climate issuse?
a. No, skeptics are unable to comprehend science.
b. Somewhat, each side has some valid points.
c. Somewhat, one side is completely wrong but they should be allowed to talk
d. No, warmists are unable to comprehend science.
5) Is the IPCC a credible organization
a. No. It was created for political purposes.
b. No, they have proven unable to manage scandal
c. Yes, in spite of some errors their main points are accurate
d. Yes, the IPCC is completely credible.
6) What should we do about climate change?
a. Reduce carbon emissions however possible.
b. Reduce carbon emissions as a natural product of advancing technology
c. There’s nothing we can do, therefore nothing.
d. Blaming CO2 for climate change is wrong, confusing Carbon with CO2 is wrong.
Well, it seems I answered the questions in terms of the consensus at 11:11 Pm PST. Does this make me a victim of group think? 🙂
What a horribly worded survey. Did SA come up with that?
I do remember a time when I actually enjoyed what it published.
“Bear in mind that many of the questions are multiple choice, and more than one answer can be selected. ”
No. This is not true. I was unable to submit unless I answered ALL the questions.
Horrible survey. Clearly biased!
HLx
Oh, excellent. I looked at the results of the poll and I answered all the questions just like the majority. Keep the “science” out of the political process, and so on. 😉
These are poorly designed and leading questions-hope their science is better!
Looks like the sceptical view predominates at the moment.
tonyb
It’s a pile of p**
Initial results certainly look encouraging !
It’s the sort of poll or audit which would have failed students on most undertaking a science degree. Is this the standard of methodology SA feels is acceptable? Interestingly, what will they do with the results?
The poll is pure garbage; written by a rank amateur with a warmist slanted bias even the blind can see.
Philip Thomas says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:11 pm (Edit)
In Dr. Curry’s recent blog outburst, she says, “Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong..” i.e she still believes CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This outpouring is positioning her to speak for skeptics, but she certainly isn’t one. I am suspicious that this is an orchestrated backpeddling to gain a firmer foothold and try to redefine what a skeptic is.
Just to reiterate – She still believes that the IPCC is fundamentally correct in its science despite her continued criticism of their credibility. Why?
I need her to question the IPCC science before I become a fan.
##############
well over 50% of skeptics believe that C02 does warm the planet.
even people like Monckton, Anthony, willis,spenser,christy,lindzen.
They think the amount is smaller than the IPCC range.
ACTUALY lets have fun with the poll and mess up their numbers
they will track users as being refered from WUWT. so go answer like a warmista.
In political polling and voting there is the fact-based phenomenon known
as “fall off”. Once the main question at the front of the survey or election
ballot is completed, the respondents are less and less likely to finish the
survey questions, or totally fill out the ballot.
The phenomenon is lessened in actual voting within a single category by a
random rotation of the candidates’ names for the particular position.
I have serious doubts as to the validity of the results of the poll to
date… as much as I like what the total responses reflect.
As of 3:20am EDT there were exactly 2,518 respondents for each
question. There were exactly 4 non-responses
for each question !
The exactitude of the number of responses to each question is not credible.
@Steven – yes, I can see that might make it interesting – but wouldn’t it be better to see if they actually publish the results in all their real glory?
Occasionally I read Dr. Curry’s comments on her blog.
She may be thinking of going to Damascus but ain’t on the road yet.
But let’s be generous, it takes time.
Well, well, well, who’d think I find myself agreeing with substantial parts of an article by Joe Romm? Specifically, I liked his strong recommendation that readers of his blog should threaten SA with subscription cancellation for this onionesque poll.
Excellent advice! Perhaps I should really do it. But wait! I already did that over a decade ago! Damn, can’t cancel an already cancelled subscription.
Comforting thought: It takes radical warmistas over ten years longer then us to realise that SA is not about science any more, but eventually even these guys get it!
Best regards,
Marcus Kesseler