Guest post by A. Scott
There has been considerable discussion about the methodology and data regarding the recent paper “Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science” (copy here)
This allegedly peer reviewed paper claims their survey data show climate skeptics are supporters of wild conspiracy theories, such as “NASA faked the moon landing.” The author admits, however, no climate skeptic sites were involved in the survey, that essentially all survey results were obtained thru posting the survey on pro-global warming sites.
Due to the serious and legitimate questions raised, I have recreated the Lewendowsky Survey in an attempt to replicate and create a more robust set of replies, including from skeptic users.
Please click on the Lewandosky Survey Page above and you’ll be presented the survey. This survey replicates the questions, both the paper, and several sites have indicated were in the original survey, including those questions deleted from the survey results.
The only change was to use a 1 to 5 ranking vs. Lewandowsky’s 1 to 4, which several people with experience have noted should improve the overall responses.
Each visit to the survey is tracked. Access is password protected for an additional layer of tracking.
THE PASSWORD FOR THE SURVEY IS “REPLICATE” (case sensitive)
Please only complete and submit once. Also, please respond to each question with the answer that best reflects your position, even though the question may not be perfectly worded.
This survey is built on the Google Doc’s open access platform. Results are collected automatically. As no significant randomization or counterbalancing was performed on the original survey none is applied here. Data collected will be provided upon request.
A. Scott
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think this recreation will produce some interesting and worthwhile results. It is almost certain to have a sample size several times larger than the original survey.
Unfortunately, it may have the effect of giving the really awful social science involved in the original Lewandowsky paper greater exposure. In a sense, the recreation of a a piece of work “so bad that it is not even wrong”, gives the original work a credibility it does not deserve.
But it will be interesting to see the results nonetheless.
Lets not forget this is a controversial topic and the survey is open to the anyone; WUWT is a popular website: the warmists will be discussing this secretly and giggling at their faux skeptic submissions.
Done. What the??
Again, yes the original survey is flawed – significantly.
But understand that the point of this new survey is to collect a more transparent data set of responses to that survey as written, and from a broader spectrum – including from “skeptics” – in order to compare the findings of a more robust data set with the biased and highly questionable data and conclusions claimed by the original author.
To my mind, a survey like this, with people as bipartisan as they are on either side, is going to reflect the opposite affect.
It is too easy to know where this survey is going with its content and I would easily make the other side look poor or make my side(ideology) look good.
Junk poll.
James Sexton says:
“Clearly the author is a warmist, but he’s also a leftist. And, he lacks critical thinking skills.”
I was thinking the exact same thing. Besides the question that outright mentions it, the majority of the survey reeks of “social justice” and various other far left talking points.
A Scott,
Thank you for your efforts at understanding. You have done an excellent job in your survey, which highlights the complete inadequacy of the original flawed survey.
Just lacking in critical thinking skills? How about a far left-wit shill with an agenda… there is no science in it.. it is pure political propaganda..
the thinking has been done and THIS IS YOUR OPINION… learn it!
I’ve had a look at the questions and did not answer them as often they admit of no answer which fits the scale of 1 to 5. As just one example:
“The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research” “.
I, like many sceptics, accept that fossil fuels are having an influence on the climate but I also believe that its influence is exaggerated by “scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research””. So, to some extent, I disagree with the first part of the question but agree, also to some extent, with the second.
In some ways I am reminded of the document that Gleick claims he received anonymously. Neither that paper not the Lewandovsky survey shows any understanding of the sceptic position.
Lewandowsky is incompetent at phrasing rigorous questions!
So many questions are badly phrased and responses will scatter about based not upon what Lewansky thought the question was supposed to test for but upon how the respondent judged careless nuances in the phrasing.
There also needs to be additional answer option for “WTF” and “don’t know, don’t care, go away”
p.s. A. Scott, I think it’s great you are doing this. The results cannot be scientifically rigorous but it still creates an interesting body of data for comparison to what Lewandowsky generated. For instance, I expect there will be many differences here with SL’s group of “skeptic” responses, and although neither set of data will be properly contained and controlled the discussion may then help to show just how biased and careless his collection methods are.
Dr Burns says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I agree Bill H. Science has nothing to do with beliefs, attitudes, income or whatever.
——————————————————
True science is devoid of those things.. So why do they try to push them? What agenda is in play that requires that they push a failed ideology as science? The moment that social justice was named it became crystal clear what the underlying agenda is.. They were not interested in the facts, they were interested in a false justification for an agenda..
its rather an obvious ploy, I might add..
It’s pretty sad when a Skeptic site has to teach you how to properly do your own research. This won’t even end up as a footnote in the book of climate wars.
I still can not believe that this is what passes for “peer reviewed” work… I am baffled that anyone would publish this garbage as serious science (AScott and Anthony are exposing it)
They deserve a big thank you!
I appreciate your effort and good intentions A. Scott but I see no value in this.
Lewandowsky’s intention, to make climate skeptics look stupid, is obvious from his choice of questions. It was an open invitation to anyone with an axe to grind with skeptics to fake their answers. This was compounded by his choice of venues to host the survey. Not so much a self-fulfilling prophecy as a self-fulfilling poll.
The likelihood of faked answers is even greater now after all the publicity and acrimony on both sides. I don’t think that tracking visits or using passwords will prevent that. WUWT is a popular blog, read and reported on by many warmists. There are even a couple of sites (which I won’t advertise by naming them) devoted to “responding to” (attacking/smearing/libelling) WUWT.
“Skeptic’s” should be “skeptics”.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
I answered the questions. Badly phrased, intent rather obvious on some popular conspiracies, yet still it was fun.
Agree with some others that good results require proper sampling and careful wording. Therefore we can only expect Garbage Out, as this was certainly Garbage In.
Watch the sun; as it grows quieter the Earth grows colder. The warm oceans cannot keep the land from cooling much longer. Ocean surface temperatures are already dropping noticeably.
When the crop failures begin, our lack of stored food will look idiotic. We burn food for fuel in transforming corn to ethanol. We actually pay farmers to not grow food. Who are the idiots?
But are people being honest in answering the questions? I can see a lot of “skeptics” gritting their teeth and saying they don’t believe in Roswell, or 9/11 truth, or all those other silly conspiracy theories, because they know it would make them look bad if they did admit to belief.
On the other hand, many “skeptics” are probably proud of their conspiracy beliefs…
Seriously ??
This is sooooo much in the “why bother” , category !!!
Ron, and others … please respond to each question with the answer that most closely reflects your position, using the wording as written regardless of the issues described. Each respondent has the same challenge with the questions as written, however the more responses the more data there is which will tend to “smooth” the results to something still usable.
So many problems with that – was it written by the Department of Stereotypes?
Still, put me down as an anti-free market, non-conspiracy-theory (in general – a couple of reservations on those that only scored 4), low wage, AGW sceptic 😀
Skiphil … again, the volume of responses I’m seeing, along with the increased quality from the 5 point scale, may well actually serve to mitigate the poor quality of the questions etc.
And based on the responses seeing so far, in total number, and the high percentage voluntarily inducing emails, I suspect this data will be far more worthwhile than perhaps originally expected.
So, what do you think the result of such a “replication” of the famous Milgram experiment would look like?
the replication of course changes the results.
many of the complains in comments are from people, who have not read or understood an important sentence in the header of the experiment. “Please make the choice that most closely reflects your response to the question as written, even though you may not agree with how the question is framed.”
David Ross says:
September 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm
I appreciate your effort and good intentions A. Scott but I see no value in this.
Lewandowsky’s intention, to make climate skeptics look stupid, is obvious from his choice of questions. It was an open invitation to anyone with an axe to grind with skeptics to fake their answers. This was compounded by his choice of venues to host the survey. Not so much a self-fulfilling prophecy as a self-fulfilling poll.
The likelihood of faked answers is even greater now after all the publicity and acrimony on both sides. I don’t think that tracking visits or using passwords will prevent that. WUWT is a popular blog, read and reported on by many warmists. There are even a couple of sites (which I won’t advertise by naming them) devoted to “responding to” (attacking/smearing/libelling) WUWT.
——————————————–
It is what it is.
Why “fake” an answer ?
I don’t know what the right answer is, in 1/2 the cases I didn’t what the question was (or my answer was not listed in any of possibile replies).
But what the heck, I took the time to consider each question and chose the answer that most nearly fit my considered opinion, every time.
Although I have no doubt that the original survey was biased, this one is possibly even more biased. Everyone here is now aware that the purpose of the original survey was to “prove” that CAGW skeptics are conspiracy theorists. So any skeptic taking the survey NOW will avoid answering any non-climate questions in such a way as to indicate a belief in conspiracy theories.
Also, I would note that not all “conspiracy theories” are wrong, and not all conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. Almost noone believes the lone gunman and magic bullet theories of the JFK assassination. Are they all conspiracy theorists? The Washington Post reporters that uncovered Watergate were conspiracy theorists … until they PROVED their theory.
And even if there is a statistical correlation between CAGW skepticism and non-climate conspiracy theories, all that proves is that some people don’t take the government at its word on ANYTHING. And why would they? It’s not like the government has a history of truthfulness.
The author admits, however, no climate skeptic sites were involved in the survey, that essentially all survey results were obtained thru posting the survey on pro-global warming sites.
—————-
Why would this matter?
Many of you guys visit pro warming sites so presumably you entered the survey. Especially since you aren’t shy about gaming online surveys.
So how relevant this all is depends on the research question. Obviously questions like how many people believe global warming is not a valid research question. But relationships between beliefs would be a valid research question assuming the courage to go and read what other people saying does not bias the results.