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.
Consider if you will:
Ms.Stanitski is in charge of ocean moorings.
And you wonder why the basic data from NOAA is suspect?
The weird thing is that the survey was obviously put together by somebody who is quite remarkably ignorant of the subject. There are questions that are completely wrong,and others where none of the alternative answers is correct, Examples:
5. Over the last 10,000 years, during the time humans developed the ability to raise crops, global climate has been:
colder than any other time in Earth’s history
warmer than any other time in Earth’s history
more stable than previous periods
more variable than previous periods
Don’t know
Other:
The only reasonable alternatives here is “Don’t know” or “other”, the first four are definitely all wrong.
13. Recent research shows that the acidity of ocean waters is increasing.
The ocean is alkaline!
14. By monitoring conditions within and above the Pacific Ocean, climate scientists have identified a pattern called the El-Niño Southern Oscillation.
El Nino has been well known for centuries (millenia?) by people living on the west coast of South America.
No one actually thought NOAA was an unbiased scientific endeavor, did they? They are a government funded advocacy group. The difference between them and the lunatic NGOs are who signs their paychecks.
Xen says: Why? Do you think that balanced, fair-minded, truth seeking, honest people have anything to fear?
——————————————————————————————————————–
Going on past history – yes
“We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues. “
It is telling that this is a lie.
#1 Is it OK to print out their employee survey and then pee on it ?
#2 Well is it OK to pee on it, so long as you don’t video it and put it on the internet ?
#3 All of the above !
#4 Other ?
As an employee you would follow the party line to keep your job, but as an American, wouldn’t you be seething inside?
NOAA employees would be advised to find the answer key before doing the survey. “Climate Literacy” is knowing, or at least answering, the correct answers.
Back in the good old says, Stalin’s ministers and generals who gave the wrong answers when called in to give advice (in confidence and anonymity, of course) were greeted with a muffled pistol shot as they left the boss’s office, and had their faces erased from group photos.
We live in more enlightened times, so the consequences would likely be, as “Gator” says, re-education. Some photos might be erased, however.
I can’t tell you how offensive the automatons who run this kind of mindless indoctrination are. One can’t help but wonder if a mandatory lobotomy is a condition of employment with the U.S. government or NOAA or NPR.
At least the … /self-snip/ … ah persons, who invented and confirmed #16 should be fired immediately.
“1. Which of the following statements about global climate change is true?
Note: the phrase “global climate change” refers to observations such as increased global temperature, decreased presence of ice, and changes in precipitation patterns.
Most climate scientists agree that global climate change is happening
Most climate scientists are undecided if global climate change is happening
Most climate scientists agree that global climate change is not happening
Don’t know
Other:”
Note that they leave anthropogenic cause out of the operational definition for the question, but it is clearly implied by the question (climate is always changing, and all – not merely most – climate scientists agree with that). This represents either:
1) a serious confusion regarding climate change and anthropogenic global warming on the part of those who created the survey, or
2) an attempt to induce that confusion in those taking the survey, or
3) both.
Given that the NOAA is not unbiased, fair or evenhanded when it comes to so-called Global Warming, that is, they are in the camp of Al Gore and his insane theories, I believe the NOAA jury rigs or even falsifies its data to verify their false theories, thus they have no credibility whatsoever. The NOAA is just another government funded global warming propaganda machine geared towards scaring the masses into following ecofascist policies designed by the Greens. Their slanted, onesided survey/quiz doesn’t surprise me in the least.
I’ve seen many of these questions (or very similiar) before, not as a NOAA document.
[REPLY: If you can remember where and provide a link, it would be helpful. -REP]
Anthony Watts:
I just took a screen shot of the current display of these links
”
Climate Needs Assessment Survey
We have temporarily removed the survey while we resolve some technical issues. Thank you
This survey is no longer accepting responses
”
I suggest you do the same and post a link to it here.
Please contact me if they have changed it. This is quite revealing as well as disgusting.
“11. Which of the following are among the expected impacts of global climate change? Check all that apply.
Shorter growing seasons
Cooler nighttime temperatures
Heavier downpours when it rains
Decrease in area affected by drought
Changes in the ranges of wildlife and plants
Increase in coastal flooding due to sea level rise
Don’t know”
Since the undefined term “global climate change” could mean just about anything, the correct answer is “all of the above”, including “Don’t know”. 🙂
….And this would be why alarmists should NEVER be muzzled. Let them talk, since they are very qualified in the art of shooting one’s foot off.
Has anyone emailed Diane?
[REPLY: WUWT does not encourage e-mailing for the purposes of vilification or harassment. Public humiliation would be enough. -REP]
Xen says (February 5, 2012 at 10:43 am): “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?”
Actually, in the current political “climate” (ouch!), those are exactly the people who have the most to fear.
Just in time for an introductory stats course class on the importance of word choice in surveys! Thanks! (Since comments are closed for this topic on Roger Pielke Sr.’s site, I’ll leave my thanks here for him, too!)
2. Most scientific studies that have looked into the cause behind the increase in global temperature over the last 50 years indicate that it is…
Caused mostly by human activities
Caused equally by human activities and natural changes
Caused mostly by natural changes
Random, so it cannot be attributed to a specific cause
Don’t know
Other:”
Most scientific studies that have looked into the cause? What is the domain of that response? In order to have generated an answer, they would need to have a list. I’ll bet they don’t. If they do, I’d really like to see it.
At any rate, the question’s use of the highly unscientific ad populum argument represents either:
1) a serious deficiency in logical reasoning on the part of those who created the survey, or
2) an attempt to induce that deficiency in those taking the survey, or
3) both.
Question 16 is a weird one. Anyone think NOAA might be preparing for an about-face and attempting to measure its potential impact on employees / dependents of AGW dogma? Why would they ask that question? It would be very interesting to see the responses.
Matthew W: “Heck, why not just check their browsing history and cookies from their WORK computers??”
Already being done.
There is a somewhat similar “online poll of scientists about climate risk” by “a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University”, named “Vision Prize”.
See: http://visionprize.com .
It also has an alarmist (and statist) flavor, sample: “If governmental policies do not change, in the year 2050, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?”.
See Poll Questions: http://visionprize.com/appendix .
Kinda “Mission” page with a beautiful headline:
“Earth and Space Scientists – Help Frame Collective Thinking About Climate Risk.”
See: http://visionprize.com/call .
As Richard Sharpe says (above, at 9:20 am): ‘Heh, circling the wagons’ – ain’t it?
This is one of those “what were they thinking” moments. Who would have been dimwitted enough to think that someone would not make this available to the public?
If I was a NOAA employee, I would assume that “wrong” answers could affect my future with NOAA. I’m not so sure that NOAA, with the taxpayer funded resources that they have, could not trace “wrong” answers back to the respondent.
It would appear that this NOAA “climate capacity-building team” effort is aimed at assuring that all NOAA employees are singing the same tune on CAGW–that NOAA becomes an even more effective propaganda machine.
4. Studies of natural records such as tree rings and layers of ice in glaciers:
give a precise and consistent record of how global temperature has changed over time
provide a relatively consistent picture of how global temperature has changed over time
show relatively inconsistent results, so they are unreliable for estimating past temperatures
provide estimates for precipitation over time, but they don’t reveal anything about past temperatures
Don’t know
Other:
“Studies of natural records such as tree rings and layers of ice in glaciers?” Another undefined domain. “Such as” implies more than is present. Are they including corals? Boreholes? Plant stomata? Sediment cores (both rightside up and upside down?)?
And they don’t say “All studies”, or even “most studies”, just “studies” – so, consistent with this question is the situation where you only consider those studies that conform to the answer that you want to be chosen. The question also assumes that the only criterion determining the validity of the proxies is their (ambiguous) “relative consistency” with each other. No possiblity for assessing the reliability of the proxies by comparison to instrumental records is provided.
In other words, this is the “Hide the decline” question. This represents:
1) a serious misunderstanding regarding the status and proper use of temperature proxies,
2) an attempt to induce that misundertanding in those taking the survey, or
3) both.