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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gawd, what a way to either lie or have one’s career limited.
I’d say that Stanitski needs to be sacked. Immediately.
Funny: They took the surveys down “due to technical issues.”
“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?
“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”.
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
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??
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.
“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:
“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.
Pure 1984 – Winston Smith would recognize it. NOAA – the new Minitrue.
” and your responses will be completely anonymous.”
uhhhh… ya think so?
Those questions are very familiar to me…like I’ve taken the survey before.
“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
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!
When will they establish re-education camps or deniers get sent directly to gulags or concentration camps.
“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”
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?
“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 …
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:
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:
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