This is odd. I suppose the strategy of Cook and Lewandowsky is to keep polling until you get the answers you want. Who would have thought there would now be a third survey? Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. reports on the solicitation he received:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:45:15 +0000
From: “Verheggen, Bart”
To: “Verheggen, Bart”
Cc: “Strengers, Bart”
Subject: Survey questions available on PBL website
Dear survey respondent,
Based on requests we received, we hereby make the Climate Science Survey questions and answer options available on the PBL website:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2012/survey-on-the-opinions-on-climate-change
With kind regards,
Bart Verheggen, Bart Strengers, Rob van Dorland, John Cook
Regards,
Dr Bart Verheggen
Scientist
………………………………………………………………
Department of Climate, Air and Energy
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Ant. van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9 | 3721 MA | Bilthoven | W.340
PO box 303 | 3720 AH | Bilthoven
Issues related to the role of climate science in society will also receive attention. The results and their analysis will be published on our website and submitted to a scientific journal. We anticipate this study to facilitate a constructive dialogue on the selected issues, between people of different opinion, and to help communicate these issues to a wider audience.
See also:
The questions asked in the survey (PDF, 403 KB)
More information
For further information, please contact the PBL press office (+31 70 3288688 or persvoorlichting@pbl.nl).
Meanwhile. Dr. Tim Ball discovered (after taking the survey) that John Cook was associated with it and wanted to be removed. He writes:
From: Tim Ball
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: Heads up
I have had a brief battle with a Netherlands government agency being used to do a survey on climate responses much like the one Lewandowsky did.
When I discovered John Cook (I assume it is the same person) was involved I asked for my contribution to be removed. They refused.
Here are the emails involved. Most recent at the bottom so you can read them in sequence.
Tim Ball
From: Tim BallSent: donderdag 20 september 2012 7:27
To: Verheggen, Bart
Cc: Strengers, Bart
Subject: Re: Thank you for responding to our climate science survey
I would be grateful if you could send me copy of the survey. I don’t want the results, just the survey as circulated.Thank youTim BallOn 2012-09-20, at 8:10 AM, Verheggen, Bart wrote:Dear Dr Ball,The initial invitation email with the request to participate in our survey was signed by the same people (i.e. including John Cook), so the information of his involvement should not be new to you. We will not remove any responses from our database.With kind regards,Bart Verheggen
Here’s the response he got back from Bart Verheggen to that request for a copy of the survey:
From: “Verheggen, Bart”Subject: RE: Thank you for responding to our climate science surveyDate: 24 September, 2012 5:43:49 AM PDTTo: ‘Tim Ball’Cc: “Strengers, Bart”
Dear Dr Ball,We are considering how to reply to your request. This will take a bit of time since we will need internal approval. We will let you know as soon as a decision is made.
Regards,Dr Bart VerheggenScientist
………………………………………………………………Department of Climate, Air and Energy
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Ant. van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9 | 3721 MA | Bilthoven | W.340
PO box 303 | 3720 AH | Bilthoven
“…we will need internal approval.” yet the questions Dr. Ball requested are publicly available online here:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/Climate_Science_Survey_Questions_PBL_2012_0.pdf
As a link from the news release about the survey here:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2012/survey-on-the-opinions-on-climate-change
So in the same week that Dr. Verheggen makes a publicly available copy of the very same questions Dr. Ball asked for available to Dr. Roger Pielke in the solicitation, he frets about how to make them available to Dr. Tim Ball after he’s already taken the survey! Could there be a more blatant display of lack of integrity?
We anticipate this study to facilitate a constructive dialogue on the selected issues, between people of different opinion, and to help communicate these issues to a wider audience.
See also:
Constructive dialog or manipulation of opinion under the guise of science? Given the Cook-Lewandowsky track record we know so far, you be the judge.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“How would you describe your specialist knowledge of one or more aspects of physical climate science?”
==============================
There is no answer of “Supreme Being” that most Official Climate Scientists would select!!
On the face of it, this seems like a pretty good survey.
However, the involvement of Cook and his lot is problematic. There are always issues with participant selection, the differences between those who decide to not respond and those who do, who is solicited, etc.
“Dr Bart Verheggen
Scientist”
Just to let everyone know that we’re doing science here. Excuse me, Science here.
Personally, I also capitalize my profession : John Smith, Bottle Washer
Are you sure Bart Simpson doesn’t deserve to be the third ‘Bart’ on the citation? I’m sure his comment on the survey must have been, succinctly, “Doh!”.
This is a misunderstanding: we conducted a survey in april of this year and have published the questions asked on the web, after requests from some respondents. This survey is no longer active.
Worldwide, psychologists expert at projection sit in awe at this spectacle, and wonder how to safely tap in to the raging torrent of data.
========================
The correct answer to most of these questions is “I do not know”. Of course many will never check off “I don’t know”. So when the results come back, sorted by the professional field of the respondents, those professional fields where dishonest scientists claim to know will be deemed as “most knowledgeable” because they will never admit that they do not know.
Climatologists will be declared the supreme authority on all matters climate and the professional consensus of 100% confirmed.
i can do science ,me
Maybe i have a blind spot about this,but i find it difficult to accept psychology as a science.
It seems to fit with crystals,dreamcatchers and astrology.
Having said that i`m willing to be proved wrong.
Actually, that’s a pretty good survey. The questions show a fairly deep knowledge of the issues.
The only issue I would have is whether the folks who are completing the survey are doing so with a specific strategic goal which will be some statement like ‘90% of scientists agree’ (with our political goal).
A more interesting result would focus on the specific areas of contention so that those involved in research can focus more strongly on expanding our knowledge in those areas.
I’m not confident, however. With the obviously politically motivated people involved, I would be shocked to see anything constructive coming out of this.
The survey questions are fairly comprehensive and the responses generally cover the spread of possible opinion. It’s a pretty good instrument for getting an idea of where the thinking is. As always it’s the population of invitees and respondents that determines the value of results. Unless that metadata is made available and explained the results are only a curiosity.
Kent Beuchert says (September 26, 2012 at 9:51 am)
—
Puhleeze. “Culinary Liquid Sanitation Engineer”.
It has to be a different John Cook or has The Cartoonists involvement been verified?
Bart Verheggen is a frequent blogger on the Dutch skeptics blogs, always defending the undefendable, like Mann’s HS… And he is a Scientist with the huge S, to make a fine distinction between Scientists and the rest of the population…
BTW, Bart Verheggen, we have already another Bart here as alias, be it a skeptic, including that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not from human emissions, where I strongly disagree…
Do we really want to give these clowns any more publicity? That’s what they’re after, you know.
I have posted an update from Bart Verheggen on my weblog that clarifies the status of this survey – http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/new-survey-on-climate-science-by-bart-verheggen-bart-strengers-rob-van-dorland-and-john-cook/
Here is Bart Verheggen’s description of himself on his blog (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/about/):
“The ‘debate’ about climate change, as portrayed in the popular media (“Is it real? Is it caused by humans?”), is entirely different from the scientific debate (which is about details; the big picture has emerged quite clearly from the past decades of research: Yes, it’s real. Yes, it’s predominantly caused by humans).”
If Bart is conducting the survey or analyzing its results, would the term “conflict of interest” be too strong?
It may come as a surprise to you but some Dutch climate sceptics have been consulted in the preparation of the survey. The relationship between AGW protagonists and antagonists in The Netherlands is somewhat more relaxed than in other countries. There are frequent and respectful contacts.
Even Fred Singer was invited by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to lecture in its major Buys Ballot Conference Room.
To my mind the questions of the survey were very to the point, sophisticated and reflect the most important points of divergence between the two camps.
I don’t know the outcome of the survey. Neither do I know the composition of the group of scientists who have participated in the survey.
I do know, however, the scientists (professional climatologists) who have authored the survey. On substance I profoundly disagree with them. But I have not any doubt about their scientific integrity.
This exercise is therefore completely different from that of Cook and Lewandowsky.
It would be wise to wait to pass judgement until the results are published.
Hans Labohm
Having Cook’s name attached to the project does not inspire any confidence ( or credibility). However, to be fair, the questions do seem comprehensive and unbiased.
This seems like a much more serious survey questionnaire. Remains to see how they selected their respondents and whether there is still the selection bias issue so blatant in Cook’s own project.
It is also possible that since they replied to Ball on 24th saying they were considering how to deal with his request, they decided to make the list public. This is not inconsistent with the email to Pielke Sr on 26th. Don’t be too quick to accuse people of lack of integrity.
“Dr Bart Verheggen
Scientist”
What genuine scientist would so describe himself?
S/He’d put PhD (Physics) or whatever the qualification was.
Please… these people are beyond ridilculous
The survey is described here (http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2012/survey-on-the-opinions-on-climate-change) as “To this end, an international survey is being held among scientists who have published about global warming. Also invited are people who publicly have raised criticisms against climate science.”
So did they contact the site that probably has more people “raising criticisms against climate science” than any other? Anthony? Got your April emails handy?
Given that SkS is little more than a rubber wallpapered room for delusional lunatics, I often wonder why serious people give it so much oxygen.
I asked two pertinent questions, my posts were snipped to pieces and I was shown the door.
Anthony, why do you waste your time on this site?
BTW I’m an ecologist by training
Here’s some help with your email sig Bart…
Dr Bart Verheggen
Jackass
Hello Hans,
Some time ago we have met… The problem with this survey is partly that no skeptics are involved in the “steering committee”, only strong AGW adepts, which makes several skeptics rather suspicious. But the main problem is the presence of John Cook, whose scientific integrity is not really to be build on. Something the other members of the committee may not have known, but which makes that no skeptic will see the results as not manipulated, no matter how integer the other members are (which they are, even if, like you, I strongly differ with several of their opinions).
Dear Ferdinand,
I don’t know Cook. But I know the other three ‘cooks’. Again, I profoundly disagree with them on substance. But I have no doubt about their scientific integrity.
I was informed that the whole exercise started to investigate the correctness of the dogma: ‘The science is settled. All scientists agree’. Visitors of this website know that that is not true. But the IPCC could pretend that it was, beacuse there was no peer-reviewed article to refute this misinformation. Let’s hope that the outcome of this exercise will prove once again that this dogma is incorrect.
Of course, the Oregon Petition Project and the list by Marc Morano, as well as some German polls have convincingly proven that there is no consensus, but these have not been published in peer-reviewed literature and thus could be conveniently ignored by the IPCC.
Let’s hope that there is no wiggle room this time.