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.
You cannot make this stuff up! It’s like the Keystone Cops of Surveys!!!! I am home laughing my little Irish [a..] off!!
[Pam! The mods are shocked!]
After reading the questions and finding them agreeable I was about to say “credit where it’s due”, but no – why give credit to people for not being crap at their paid job? .That should be the norm.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/Climate_Science_Survey_Questions_PBL_2012_0.pdf
It’s a little tedious but they could go further and ask for each question the level of sureness, which I’ve seen sometimes. Right now it’s a case of Know (an answer) or Don’t Know any answer. Can permit, for example, “I believe the answer is A, and I’m Very sure of that”.
But still, this only covers questions pertaining to the direct influence/existence of AGW. Where’s the question asking how many climate refugees will eventuate from climate change? Food shortages, extreme weather fatalities, climate anxiety… so often that’s where the disagreement starts and where the label “denier” is pulled out even for those who have accepted an anthropogenic influence.
Bingo! Now that’s what I call nailing it.
“Sean says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
Here’s some help with your email sig Bart…
Dr Bart Verheggen
Jackass”
So this is the type of thing that is approved by moderators ? I imagine if Lew had called Watts a Jackass everyone would be up in arms.
Quote:
This is odd. I suppose the strategy of Cook and Lewandowsky is to keep polling until you get the answers you want.
—————————————————
Ah, they must have been taking lessons from the EU. Every time a nation votes against EU expansion, the EU parliament say the people are confused, and they should vote again.
In fact, a survey of EU procedures has determined that if the EU was a nation who applied to join the EU, it would be rejected for being completely undemocratic. Its no wonder that the Greens are so in love with the EU, and vice versa.
.
I find it fascinating, that after reading all the comments, no one has identified whether or not the “John Cook” named as an author of the study is actually the same culprit who deletes all and any commentary on the SKS(Skeptical Science) blog. That in itself is somewhat surprising seeing as one of it’s authors commented here earlier. If it is the same John Cook, than there are major problems already as it would make that study null and void.
A cartoonist does not a scientist make.
I also tend to agree that civility and fairness should be applied to people that one has come to loathe for their erroneous and obviously biased viewpoint. As stated, they are not going to discuss anything if we act the same way as those lunatics do on SKS (SS) and on other warmist sites. We should be above that.
If this survey comes up with a different result to that of Doran and Zimmerman, say 86% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans instead of 97%, then there will need to be another survey to determine the consensus among climatologists as to whether it’s 86% or 97%.
Joe Public
Tambrands, Fitter.
Whatmenaresayingaboutwomen Jay says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:13 pm
no one has identified whether or not the “John Cook” named as an author of the study is actually the same culprit who deletes all and any commentary on the SKS(Skeptical Science) blog
The identification is not that difficult: the survey was in cooperation with the University of Western Australia, where John Cook and Lewandowsky are cooperating in biased surveys and SkS is based there too.
And if it was in error, I suppose that Bart Verheggen would have corrected that…
This questionnaire is biased at Q1 and shows little professional attention to detail. I haven’t bothered to go further.
As Ken Harvey points out in Q1 (we get no further) we see lower answer categories of:
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
The design of this questionnaire forces anyone replying into categories which may not reflect their real view. There is absolutely no reason why a ‘Percentage: Please write in’ could be used to give the respondent an accurate reply. Then the final category ’caused cooling’ is junk. What can be less than 0%?. If it is 0% why should it cause anything in terms of cooling or heating?.
This is Kindergarden stuff!
The odd thing is that there a rather large assumption that the ‘experts ‘ in an area as the best people to ask questions like this off , well that is true in one sense buts its also untrue in another.
I want to find out if people really do believe good exist.
Clearly the ‘experts ‘would those most involved, trained and experienced in this area, which are priests of various religions.
On asking them the majority do indeed agree that god exist, therefore as these ‘experts ‘ have such a consensus it must be true that they does exist .
Here is the problem, the assumption is people’s whose very career and who have a strong personal commitment to view are ‘not biased’ when it comes to answering questions which directly affect their job and personal views. In reality, it’s a nonsense idea for the same way religions ‘experts’ are self selecting and can be self serving , so can climate ‘science’ experts .
Remember this was an academic area seen as little worth to most universities that could get little funding and even less public attention, and for the most part did not offer an attractive academic career path.AGW changed that massively, the status of this area in academia ,and all that goes with it ,went through the roof, the funding came in by the bucket load so much so that its almost become a running joke to see ‘climate change ‘ hammered into any old research in order to get access to funding. In addition, for some in this area really was the path to fame and riches not to mention political influence they could have only in the past dreamed about.
So the ‘experts ‘ really do a very strong vested interest in keeping this ball rolling , and although as scientists then should be above such , both the historic record of science in action and the track record of ‘the Team’ shows that is simply not the case . Therefore although it is a good question as to who else could you ask if not the experts , you also have to remember that the ‘experts ‘ are also just humans and the more committed they are to something the more likely they may be to give answers tainted by that ‘commitment ‘
And using ‘published, and peer-reviewed” when they KNOW the climate science peer-review and publishing is totally corrupted.. Sorry , but .. this is a nonsense survey, and with Cook’s involvement it is OBVIOUSLY aimed at some sort of propaganda outcome……..because that’s what he does.
TAINTED from the very start !!
Christopher Hanley says:
“If this survey comes up with a different result to that of Doran and Zimmerman, say 86%”
I HAS to come up with more than the ZB survey, otherwise the skeptics are winning.
Was 97%, is now 86%…… etc whoops !!!!!
They have painted themselves into a very tiny corner !!!
Good thing I don’t play the piano !! ZB -> DZ.
Yep, like moths to a flame, bloggers are trapped every time. Solution? Close your eyes and fly away. “Sorry, we don’t participate in surveys. Always happy to discuss the evidence, but no surveys, thanks.” Problem solved, no bandwidth or time wasted.
/Mr Lynn
If I ever participated in a survey such as this one, it would be to screw up their findings. It is more likely that I would not consider it worth my time and effort to even mess with it. A sufficient reason is found in the first question. The answer “Unknown due to lack of knowledge” does not allow me to specify the extent of lack of knowledge. There is a huge difference between a lack of knowledge on a personal level and a general lack of knowledge in the scientific community. I am assuming that, in this context, knowledge means verifiable understanding as opposed to a nice theory which some group agrees on.
I would also have been reassuring if there had been some questions how an individual should be regarded if he withholds raw data and information on methods. It ignores the possibility that there are some highly regarded (at least within their communities) individuals who know that their theories are not adequately supported by much other that personal bias.
Surveys are not science. The results are not scientific. Those writing the surveys do so from their personal paradigm, their world view. Therefore where those who believe in CAGW write the survey, they expect the results to reinforce the 97% consensus nonsense. The results would be translated into pseudo mathematics and presented as propaganda.
The surveys are based on the paradigm prevailing among CAGW believers that if skeptics are not with them they must be against them. Framed as questions in a survey the two alternatives present a false dichotomy. Science isn’t based on which of two opposing views is correct. Psychologists and sociologists who produce surveys are not scientists. They are not doing scientific research. In the context of science and scientific progress, surveys are totally meaningless.
If the the people who write the surveys want to know what scientists think they should read and understand their writings and published papers, or simply write to them and ask them to express an opinion in their own words.
FYI, the webpage with the survey questions is now 404 (not found).
Sounds like someone is covering their tracks.
Down the memory hole we go…
404 confirmed
There was a technical problem. It should work again.
Got the 404 and looked around a bit.
The location of the webpage with the questions has been moved. It is now at:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/nieuwsberichten/Climate_Science_Survey_Questions_PBL_2012.pdf
Below we (Bart Verheggen and Bart Strengers) reply to some of the more substantive questions regarding the survey questions raised in this thread. However, we will not discuss results or the survey sample at this point in time. We will do so when our manuscript has been accepted. For further discussions about the survey questions, please visit Bart Verheggen’s blog.
Ken Harvey asks (46), referring to question 1a
1a. What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosol cooling)
Between 76% and 100%
Between 51% and 76%
Between 26% and 50%
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
There has been no warming
Unknown due to lack of knowledge
I do not know
Other (please specify)
Ken Harvey wrote:
“Let’s say that I believe that the correct answer is 0. If I tick that box I immediately lump my opinion in with those who think that 25% is the appropriate answer, despite the world of difference between our positions. I am tempted to tick the next box down indicating less than 0% and I may, or may not give in to that temptation. Let’s sat that I believe that the correct answer is 25%. I face a similar problem – I don’t want to be lumped in with the fellow who thinks that the answer is 0. I am tempted to tick the higher box.”
Our answer:
This is indeed a dilemma. An alternative which we considered is to ask the respondent to provide a percentage themselves (i.e. as an open numeric question). This however would ‘force’ the respondent to provide a number which, according to many, would create the impression of much higher certainty than there is about this estimate. (Can we really distinguish whether this contribution is 81 or 82%? [or 2 or 3% if you wish]). It is clear that both options have pros and cons, but we believe that by making enough –but not too much- ranges available, we obtain relevant information about the respondents’ thoughts.
Robert of Ottawa asks (66):
“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.”
Answer:
Question 2 doesn’t go into causation (be it anthropogenic or natural); 2b is only about what the respondent thinks is happening to global temperatures on longer timescales. Eg the answer option to 2b “Long-term warming trend has changed as indicated by my previous answer” could be chosen to reflect the opinion that temps are cooling also on longer timescales.
A. Scott asks (72):
“Would you share a bit more detail about what the goal of your survey is – what you hope to find from it.”
Answer:
The objective of this study is to gain insight into how scientists, who have published on global warming, perceive physical science issues, which are frequently debated in the public domain. E.g. by investigating the extent to which scientist agree or disagree about these issues (both the big picture issues and the detailed aspects)? How are these responses related to one another? What can we learn from that?
DaveA asks (79):
“But still, this only covers questions pertaining to the direct influence/existence of AGW. Where’s the question asking how many climate refugees will eventuate from climate change? Food shortages, extreme weather fatalities, climate anxiety… so often that’s where the disagreement starts and where the label “denier” is pulled out even for those who have accepted an anthropogenic influence.”
Answer:
As explained on the PBL website regarding this survey, we decided to focus on physical science aspects of the public debate (mostly with a ‘skeptical’ signature): These ‘IPCC Working Group I’ topics are a focal point in the public debate and they form the foundations for further deliberation; for example, regarding impacts or response strategies. We chose to be as complete as realistically possible in covering the physical science aspects, acknowledging that that meant we could not include other aspects such as you mention.
Tim Welham (87) asks:
“This questionnaire is biased at Q1 and shows little professional attention to detail. I haven’t bothered to go further. As Ken Harvey points out in Q1 (we get no further) we see lower answer categories of:
Between 0 and 25%
Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
The design of this questionnaire forces anyone replying into categories which may not reflect their real view. There is absolutely no reason why a ‘Percentage: Please write in’ could be used to give the respondent an accurate reply. Then the final category ’caused cooling’ is junk. What can be less than 0%?. If it is 0% why should it cause anything in terms of cooling or heating?”
Answer:
For deliberations regarding an open question or offering ranges as answer options, please see above in our reply to Ken Harvey. There is no right or wrong there, but multiple options with each their specific pros and cons. However, offering the wide range of answer options we do (even providing the option of answering that greenhouse gases cause cooling (i.e. a negative percentage), we believe we avoided a bias a much as possible. One could actually make the argument that these answer options have an inherent bias in the other direction, since the option that GHG by themselves are responsible for more than the observed warming (i.e. >100%; see e.g Huber and Knutti, 2011) has not been subdivided into multiple ranges. More people may deem the survey too detailed rather than not detailed enough.
Bart Verheggen and Bart Strengers