Biased climate survey sent to all NOAA employees

UPDATE: It appears NOAA has realized the folly of this survey and has taken it offline. The satirical Question #16 (posted by a commenter) parodies the survey. The responses (which probably aren’t far from that) they got to it from employees might have had something to do with it:

How likely are you to keep your job if the public is informed that climate change will not affect them or their descendents in a negative manner?

=========================================

Dr. Roger Pielke Senior writes on his blog:

I was alerted by Marc Morano to a survey that NOAA is sending out to its employees. The first e-mail is to Marc apparently from a NOAA employee.

Here’s the letter via Morano:

Mr. Morano:

NOAA employees today were asked to participate in a Climate Knowledge Survey.  I have included the inviting email below.  In order to take the survey, however, you must have a valid NOAA email account, so I have cut and pasted the Survey itself and the key to the ‘correct’ answers below for your reading pleasure.  As you can see, there are certainassumptions larded throughout this survey, such as what many climate scientists believe is ‘true.’   Thought you might be interested.

Regards,

Here’s the letter announcing the climate survey sent to NOAA employees:

All,

Climate has connections to many scientific and societal issues. To characterize NOAA’s level of climate literacy and assess interest in climate training materials and other resources, a NOAA climate capacity-building team has been established.  The team’s overall goal is to enhance the ability of NOAA staff to effectively communicate about climate science.

As part of this process, I encourage you to consider completing the team’s Climate Knowledge and Needs Assessment Surveys by February 15. The first survey characterizes the current level of climate literacy among respondents, and the second assesses the need for climate-related professional development resources or opportunities. Each survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete, and your responses will be completely anonymous.  You can access the surveys by clicking here:

Climate Knowledge Survey

Needs Assessment Survey

The capacity-building team will use the survey results to identify and provide opportunities for NOAA staff to become more conversant about NOAA’s climate products, information, and services.

Your participation in these surveys will greatly assist with this NOAA-wide effort. Participation in these surveys and taking advantage of future opportunities is voluntary. If you have any questions or comments about the surveys or the goals of this climate team, please contact Diane Stanitski at 301-427-2465 or diane.stanitski@noaa.gov.

Dr. Pielke has the entire survey Q&A here on his blog and he comments on many of the questions. It is a real eye opener worth reading. He concludes with:

The survey is actually a policy advocacy document, as well as an evaluation of the loyalty of NOAA employees to the perspective of individuals such as Tom Karl and Tom Peterson.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Philhippos

It has already been taken down – I wonder why!

Gator

“… the second assesses the need for climate-related professional development resources or opportunities.”
In other words, re-education.

Alvin

The survey’s are now offline. Word gets out.

pat

Childish, designed to weed out the intelligent, and ridiculously wrong in some areas? The tree ring answer is particularly striking.

Fred 2

That was quick.
Here’s what I got when I clicked both links
Climate Needs Assessment Survey
We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues.
Thank you

Peter Miller

It didn’t take NOAA long to take both their surveys off line.
An action that doesn’t smack of either honesty or integrity to me.

Gator

Apparently the links for the suveys have been disabled

Darkinbad the Brightdayler

Reminds me of the Loyalty Oath narrative in Catch 22

Honest ABE

Question #15:
Which “greenhouse gas” has the most direct impact on the climate?
Question #16:
How likely are you to keep your job if the public is informed that climate change will not affect them or their descendents in a negative manner?

Gary Pate

Witchhunt!

Richard Sharpe

Heh, circling the wagons.

Jakehig

Not exactly an objective appraisal: it is more an attempt to try and corral the troops and keep them “on message”.
Qu 10….I thought the highest CO2 emitter on a per capita basis was Australia which is not in the list of possible answers?

David Oliver Smith

The surveys have been taken down. Tsk, tsk Roger and Anthony. Look what you made them do.

Hmm… “We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues. “
Looks like they noticed the criticisms.
Your Tax Dollars At Work.

Pity there wasn’t a check-all-that-apply question “Which web sites do you use to further your understanding of climate change?”
The list and the answer would have been far more informative than the rest of this survey. 🙂

redneek

They took the survey down. Must not have been going their way.

trbixler

A bureaucracy protects itself and expands its agenda at all costs. Tax money is thought to be endless. So far they are right.

David B

Und you vill follow zee party line.

Beesaman

Climate Knowledge Survey
We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues.
Thank you

Grant

Numbing.
Look for the survey to be blended into NOAA job application form.

6. Which of the following processes has been identified as the most significant cause of increasing global temperatures over the last century?

This suggests that global temperatures have increased throughout the last century when we all know people had no impact on climate before 1979 or so, when the most recent rise started. (/sarc)
Picky? Perhaps, but if so then there should have been:
6a. Which of the following processes has been identified as the most significant cause of decreasing global temperatures over the last century?
—-
Oh yeah – Go Pats!

Rogelio

Survey has been removed

Camburn

This is certainly not a credible survey. And to think, US tax dollars went to pay for this rubbish.
That is the slanderous part of all of this.

Mariss

I got the following message when I clicked on the Climate Knowledge Survey link:
“Climate Knowledge Survey
We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues. Thank you
This survey is not currently accepting responses.”
Maybe the technical issue has something to do with the replies the survey drew.

Sounds like the first step in a largescale purging of undesireable views among the NOAA. Are the questionaires really anonymous?

mark f

Gawd, what a way to either lie or have one’s career limited.

crosspatch

I’d say that Stanitski needs to be sacked. Immediately.

Funny: They took the surveys down “due to technical issues.”

DirkH

“How likely are you to keep your job if the public is informed that climate change will not affect them or their descendents in a negative manner?”
Rich. Reminding their employees that they better keep up the alarmism. Maybe time to make that clear in their mission statement?

crosspatch

“The survey’s are now offline. Word gets out.”
I’d say the cockroaches always scatter when someone turns on the light. Light has been shown on this attempt to indoctrinate employees through a “survey” and it has suddenly be “disappeared”.

Mark T

I would not be surprised if they were threatened with legal action from one or more “denialist” employees. That’s what I would do.
Mark

Allan MacRae

6. Which of the following processes has been identified as the most significant cause of increasing global temperatures over the last century?
Check one:
a. Burning of evil fossil fuels
b. Burning of evil fossil fuels
c. Burning of evil fossil fuels
d. Burning of evil fossil fuels
e. All of the above
6A. Which of the following processes has been identified as the most significant cause of DECREASING global temperatures THIS century?
Check one:
f. Aerosols
g. Dust
h. Volcanos
i. Absence of dinosaur farts
j. Burning of evil fossil fuels

Ric Werme says:
February 5, 2012 at 9:25 am
Pity there wasn’t a check-all-that-apply question “Which web sites do you use to further your understanding of climate change?”
=================================================================
Heck, why not just check their browsing history and cookies from their WORK computers??

Louise

Is it really such a good idea to include Ms Stanitski’s telephone number and e-mail address?

David B says:
February 5, 2012 at 9:28 am
Und you vill follow zee party line.
____________________________________
Unt you vill like it.

crosspatch

“Is it really such a good idea to include Ms Stanitski’s telephone number and e-mail address?”
Yeah, we probably shouldn’t go around holding our government officials responsible for their actions. Particularly so for the unelected Kommissars.
/sarc

crosspatch says:
February 5, 2012 at 9:44 am
> I’d say that Stanitski needs to be sacked. Immediately.
There’s a good chance that she’s an administrative assistant who was given the task of getting the poll out. She’s probably gotten enough hate mail to make her Monday a Monday.
Nope, I’m wrong (well, maybe not about the hate mail). http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo_pa/coms/index.html says:

Climate Observations and Monitoring
The Climate Observations and Monitoring (COM) Program’s mission is to design, deploy, and sustain an integrated global network of oceanic, atmospheric, and Arctic observing instruments to produce continuous records, as well as value-added products, of a number of essential climate variability and change parameters.
Program activities aim to:
1. Build and sustain a global climate observing system according to climate monitoring principles
2. Develop and maintain long time-series indicators of climate variability and change
3. Develop and maintain standard data sets for initialization and evaluation of climate forecast models, assessments of climate change, and informed risk management
4. Perform diagnostic studies of observed patterns of climate variability and change on global to regional scales
The resulting global climate observations and products contribute to other NOAA Programs aimed at understanding, modeling, and forecasting of the climate system, as well as developing targeted information to better inform society about climate impacts and response options. Access to these global observations and science-based analysis of climate data has provided our Nation with unique abilities to minimize climate related risk and maximize climate-related opportunities. The program also provides data and information management support for national and international climate assessments. The COM Program supports and coordinates its observing efforts with other activities in NOAA, other federal agencies, as well as international partners.
Email: oar.cpo.com@noaa.gov
Contact:
David M Legler, Division Chief
[See web page for phone #s]
Diane Stanitski – OceanSites, Moorings
Candyce Clark – Tropical Moored Buoys, JCOMM, etc
Sidney Thurston – International Development
Joel Levy – Carbon Observing systems
Steve Piotrowitcz – Argo Program Manager
John Calder – Arctic, Program Manager
Kathy Crane – Arctic, Program Manager
Chris Miller – Climate Monitoring, Program Manager
Bill Murray – Climate Monitoring, Program Manager

“Carbon Observing systems” – perhaps that’s source of the CO2 centric point of view.
“Argo Program Manager” – I’m tempted to ask him about what he contributed to the survey. (Hopefully it was just criticsm.) Or maybe ask how much the global temperature has changed during the ARGO program as measured by the ARGO flotilla.

Bengt Abelsson

Pure 1984 – Winston Smith would recognize it. NOAA – the new Minitrue.

H.R.

” and your responses will be completely anonymous.”
uhhhh… ya think so?

Jenn Oates

Those questions are very familiar to me…like I’ve taken the survey before.

jimbojinx

“How likely are you to keep your job if the public is informed that climate change will not affect them or their descendents in a negative manner?”- As I read it, the question implies that there ARE no negative consequences due to “climate change”-its just that the public does not know it yet ! [And it is l your job to make sure they never do !].

Another page at CPO:
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo_pa/objectiveIV.html says:
Strategic Climate Objective: IV Promote Public Climate Literacy
Climate change and climate variability bring potential for adverse impacts as well as opportunities for commerce. Climate change and variability affect the nation’s security, economy, natural resources, and public and environmental health. To help protect ecosystems and build sustainable communities that are resilient to climate change and variability – including extreme weather and climate events – NOAA is actively working to foster a climate-literate citizenry.
A climate-literate person is someone who has a fundamental understanding of how Earth’s climate system works, the relationships and interactions between the living and non-living environment, and has the ability to understand and utilize scientific evidence to make informed decisions regarding climate-related issues. Over the next 5 years, our Objective is to establish a robust Communication, Education, and Engagement (CEE) Program that is guided by the needs of our publics, and that integrates the latest, most authoritative climate information from across NOAA, and its partners, into a cohesive framework.
This Objective aims to support three key aspects of NOAA’s Climate Goal:
1. the agency’s and its partners [sic – this page possesses possessive impossibilities] climate science missions and milestones;
2. the agency’s and its partners climate services missions and milestones; and
3. characterize our publics’ needs, wants, and expectations for access to NOAA’s and its partners’ climate science and services.
Our three main near-term foci are to:
1. Evolve the prototype NOAA Climate Services Portal (www.climate.gov) into an operational website called Climate.gov. Evolution will be based upon user feedback and the effort will be integrated across all of NOAA to provide a single, authoritative online point of entry whereby the public can access the agency’s and its partners’ climate data, information, and services.
2. Boost the climate literacy of NOAA’s and its partners’ personnel, and build their capacity to communicate with, educate and engage our publics. Advances in this initiative will be made by leveraging our extension networks (e.g., SeaGrant, NERRS, the National Weather Service, State Climatologists, and our Regional Climate Service Directors) and providing a consistent, well-rounded suite of professional development opportunities and resources that all can draw upon.
3. Expand the use of NOAA’s and its partners’ climate services in our publics’ decision-making contexts. This effort begins with a solid characterization of stakeholders’ needs for climate data, information, and services using the results of previously conducted needs assessments (to minimize the burden on our stakeholders). We may develop and conduct new assessments where none have been conducted previously. Then we will determine what needs can be met by existing capabilities, and we will identify gaps where development of new climate data, information, and services are needed.
Objective Lead:
David Herring, Director
Communication and Education Program
NOAA’s Climate Program Office

David Ball

They are circling the wagons, but they are shooting inwards,…

I distrust anything that comes from a “capacity building team”, likewise anything that is addressed to “stakeholders” or seeks to “empower” people.
I’ve played too many games of ‘Bullsh*t Bingo” in my life!

Mohatdebos

When will they establish re-education camps or deniers get sent directly to gulags or concentration camps.

Bill Wood

“How likely are you to keep your job if you embarass your boss? Your boss’s boss?”
Rule #1 of dealing with government:
“never emabarass a bureaucrat”

Xen

Louise says:
Is it really such a good idea to include Ms Stanitski’s telephone number and e-mail address?
————————————————————————————————————————–
Why? Do you think that balanced, fair-minded, truth seeking, honest people have anything to fear?

JJ

“To improve our ability to draw valid conclusions from the survey without identifying individuals, please enter a unique five digit number that you will remember and use again on related surveys (for instance, you might choose the last five numbers of your personal phone number).
No attempt will be made to identify you. Your number will be used only to match results to related surveys or pair before and after scores if you take this survey again.”

LOL.
We won’t attempt to identify you, but just in case we can’t match you to your answers using the IP address of your government issued computer, why don’t you just go ahead and give us the 5 out of the 7 ordered digits of your personal phone number that uniquely ID you…
Chutzpah!
I hope somebody saved the survey questions and answers, before they were taken down. I would really like to see them …

wermet

From Anthony’s updated blog entry:
UPDATE: It appears NOAA has realized the folly of this survey and has taken it offline. Question #16 and the response they got to it might have had something to do with it:

How likely are you to keep your job if the public is informed that climate change will not affect them or their descendents in a negative manner?

Please keep in mind that this question was *NOT* part of the NOAA survey! “Question 16” was added by a commenter as a satirical statement. The survey actually ended with:

15. Please share any comments or recommendations you have regarding this survey.
Thank you for your time

I feel that it is of the utmost importance that we not impugn our own integrity by misquoting or adding to the misguided silliness of others!
– wermet
REPLY: I’ve edited the text to make this clear – Anthony

We suggest that You use a simple code which you can then use for any further questionairs that we mihjt produce in the future. Your comments and answers will of course be anonymous but you might like to use the last five digits of your personal phone number which of course we could never trace even if we wanted to.
What