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.
At Mosh.
His actions, not mine,, …
If he wants to associate with John Cook.. More fool him !!!
Asking all skeptics in the open venue climate blogosphere if they were invited to take the survey and if they declined also asking why they declined would give some valuable information.
In my case, if I knew that there were no skeptics mixed into the group leading the survey, I would have declined to take it since I could not expect reasonably adequate checks and balances against the AGW consensus supporters involved in leading the survey from biasing the results.
Also, if I knew that either John Cook or Bart Verheggen were in anyway involved in organizing and/or leading the survey, I would have declined to take it since I think they are clearly not capable (based on their long blog track record) of being in any way open to non-consensus viewpoints. That is, how could I expect fair treatment from them as survey leaders of survey responses provided by skeptics? Because of that I think there are ongoing intellectual integrity concerns wrt to them being involved in the survey team.
SUGGESTION: I suggest the following request be sent all the blogs that have the balanced scientific attitude to encourage skeptical views of the IPCC endorsed ‘settled’/ ‘consensus’ science. REQUEST to open venue blog participants: Did you receive an invitation to participate the survey? If you did, did you decline? If you declined, please provide the basis of your refusal.
John
The survey is another distraction from the divergence of temperature and Co2. Surveys are not cogent to the discussion, are they?
They are losing on every front. Get back to your books and concentrate on something that actually matters.
is investigating the range of scientific opinions about climate change….. Scientific Opinions????? when did an opion begin to constitue fact? This is what happens when the government hands out too much play money to the children!
argh finger nails too long, must be that wretched CO2! sorry OPINION
Lance Wallace says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Hans, this is what you actually said:
“This exercise is therefore completely different from that of Cook and Lewandowsky.”
Cook is one of the Gang of Four here. …
It would be far more relevant to consider the survey questionnaire itself in detail. Are the questions biased, for instance? Lewandowsky’s plainly are and also force choices to either weak aggreement or doubt where “don’t know” would be appropriate. The Netherlands survey confined itself strictly to question related to the scientific aspects of the climate debate. There are no asinine “conspiracy” questions, and the range of choices in answer actually makes it possible quantify fairly nuanced views. The set of professional choices also allows the analyst to correlate professional back grounds, contrasting e.g. individuals claiming geological expertise with individuals claiming climate impact expertise. The important issues are methodological. Provided that the survey was circulated among an honestly drawn sample of the study population, and that the study population was honestly delimited to acquire a valid cross-section of scientific opinion, the results should be interesting.
Instead of doing science ……..they can do a survey and if it comes out the way they like it …… they can claim consensus !
Do these people get paid wages for what they Do!
D. Böehm,
You wrote: ‘Why are you so frightened of having skeptical scientific input? You would be widely praised if you put together a group of 50/50 skeptics and alarmists to formulate the questions. Only someone who has his conclusions in mind prior to a survey would use your entirely like-minded group.’
Fair question! As I already mentioned there was some skeptical scientific input.
But the 50/50 approach would of course have been better.
We – AGW protagonists and antagonists together – are still working on that in The Netherlands in various ways and so far the results seem promising. Stay tuned!
Steven Mosher.
When a banker causes a $1billion waste of public money by dishonestly reporting interest rates, they get locked up for many years.
Climate Academics have caused a $1tillion waste of public money by dishonestly reporting temperature predictions. The only people who should want to talk to them is the police.
Hans,
They MUST get rid of ANY link to John Cook if they ever want to be taken seriously.
His involvement TAINTS the whole thing into worthlessness.
Altough, getting rid of him now.. its probably way too late…
Bad luck guys.
The stench of doggie doo is really hard to remove.
Hans Labohm says:
September 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Just wondering how you felt about the treatment Anthony received at the hands of PBS. If you have not seen it (which would surprise me ), it is readily searchable on this blog.
Here’s an interesting item from SS, looking how well people have predicted Arctic ice minima:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent-2012.html#commenthead
Anyone wish to assist me in putting together another 2,000+ surveys (plus spurious respondents) just for the sheer hell of it?
Question 2A asks: Has the trend in global average temperature changed in the past decade, compared to the preceding decades?
and offers the possible answer: The trend over the past decade is negative (i.e. cooling)
But question2b asks: What is your interpretation of the trend over the past decade with respect to the long term (multi-decadal) trend?
and does not offer the possible answer from 2A: “The trends are of natural cause”. Instead, it offers variants for Warmistas or don’t know.
How about a rigged poll?
Continuation from previous post:
Thus it could be argued that those who accept a cooling trend are ignorant.
Good one banjo. I look forward to the tuneful: “I am a crimatologist”
I think it would be a good idea to lay off the “Cook” angle. Once a proposition (or survey) has been stated it should be able to stand or fall on its own merits. Treating it with floccinaucinihilipilification (God, how I’ve wanted to use that word!) because of Cook’s involvement is simply ‘guilt by association’, which is the equally flawed mirror image of ‘argument from authority’.
It doesn’t look good to be indulging in the the same logical flaws we so justifiably object to when they appear in our opponents’ arguments.
I agree with Steven Mosher here. We have an author of a paper who has come here and replied. I don’t care if its this author, Cook, Lewandowsky or the Mann himself.
In this house they should be treated with a minimal respect. Not because you agree with them, but because its the right thing to do. Take the high ground,
Respond with questions – tough ones are perfectly legitimate. But if you simply shout out people you disagree with when they do come here – there is no hope of dialog.
Here the association with Cook creates a pre-perception. It may or may not be accurate. That Bart took the time to come here and post, what seems a perfectly legitimate clarification, should be an invitation to ask real questions. Many who actually read the survey indicate it was, unlike others, much better done.
Regardless whether there is a potential bias in the author group – ask questions and make up you own mind if the overall work is legitimate and fair.
This place – with its strong and broad reach, and generally well informed readership – should be better than the others. You can be critical while also showing a basic civility and respect.
Again – take the high ground – and see what you can learn – one thing is certain, once you light the torches and fire up the tar and feathers, you aren’t going to learn a thing – other than how fast someone can, rightfully, run away..
I’ll start – Mr. Verheggen … two questions
1. First – would you share a bit more detail about what the goal of your survey is – what you hope to find from it
2. On your blog you state you intend to provide a “balanced” view of “the scientific knowledge on climate change.” But then you offer your own definition of “balanced” – which allows (or some will say excuses) your posting of science that agrees with your “AGW based beliefs. Wouldn’t it be far better to present the scientific knowledge from both sides and discuss the differences in them?
Poor old John Cook, he is such an embarrassment to Australia.
I predict there will be a thousand such surveys, since they capture sites like this one for days at a time. Geez. First BEST, now this. Anybody here know how to postulate a strategy?
I bet Anthony could put forward a fair and balanced set of questions from and for the related scientific community…
David Ball says:
September 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm
The survey is another distraction from the divergence of temperature and Co2. Surveys are not cogent to the discussion, are they?
==================================================================
During an election? Yes, for the reason you stated in your first sentence.
Some of the surveys’, like the Lewpaper, purposes seem to be to paint those who’ve noticed the broken hockey sticks and Hansen’s cracked crystal ball as loons to be ignored. Also, some seem to be trying to find out why people don’t quite believe Gore “et al” but might yet be persuaded. Kind of like a marketing survey to find out what it would take to get you to buy their product. (My wife tells me I already have enough crap laying around the house so such surveys are wasting their time on me.8-)
A. Scott says:
September 26, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I have been an observer in this game for a LONG time. Normally, I would agree 100%. Turn the other cheek and all that. From my perspective, the alarmist contingent has been less than kind. Evil in fact. It must be said. Dirty tricks, altered posts on blogs, misrepresentation of skeptic points, lies of omission, interviews that end up being sucker-punches, newspaper articles full of lies, etc, etc. I was polite and cordial at all times. Now there are no cheek left to turn that aren’t bloodied and bruised from rigged engagements. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away before Charlie Brown realizes he is NEVER going to kick the ball?
This particular fellow created an “unbiased” survey by excluding any skeptics. How much more evidence is it going to take? He knew full well what he was doing. Can you see that?