I and (according to Cook) 50 other blogs (with a supposed 50/50 skeptic to advocate split) have received this invitation:
Hi Anthony
As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web, I’m seeking your assistance in conducting a crowd-sourced online survey of peer-reviewed climate research. I have compiled a database of around 12,000 papers listed in the ‘Web Of Science’ between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. I am now inviting readers from a diverse range of climate blogs to peruse the abstracts of these climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. If you’re interested in having your readers participate in this survey, please post the following link to the survey:
[redacted for the moment]
The survey involves rating 10 randomly selected abstracts and is expected to take 15 minutes. Participants may sign up to receive the final results of the survey (de-individuated so no individual’s data will be published). No other personal information is required (and email is optional). Participants may elect to discontinue the survey at any point and results are only recorded if the survey is completed. Participant ratings are confidential and all data will be de-individuated in the final results so no individual ratings will be published.
The analysis is being conducted by the University of Queensland in collaboration with contributing authors of the website Skeptical Science. The research project is headed by John Cook, research fellow in climate communication for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of The University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with project staff (contactable on +61 7 3365 3553 or j.cook3@uq.edu.au), if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in the study, you may contact the Ethics Officer on +61 7 3365 3924.
If you have any questions about the survey or encounter any technical problems, you can contact me at j.cook3@uq.edu.au
Regards,
John Cook
University of Queensland/Skeptical Science
I asked Cook a series of questions about it, because given his behavior with Lewandowsky, I have serious doubts about the veracity of this survey. I asked to see the ethics approval application and approval from the University, and he declined to do so, saying that it it would compromise the survey by revealing the internal workings. I also asked why each of the 50 emails sent out had a different tracking code on it, and he also declined to explain that for the same reason. I asked to see the list of 12,000 papers, so that I could see if the database had a true representation of the peer reviewed landscape, and he also declined, but said the list would be posted “very soon”.
I had concerns about the tracking codes that were on each email sent out, and I ran some tests on it. I also tested to see if they survey could be run without tracking codes, it cannot and I asked him if he would simply provide a single code for all participants so that there can be no chance of any binning data by skeptic/non skeptic blogs or any preselection of the papers presented based on the code. I said this would truly ensure a double blind. He also declined that request.
He stated that he had an expectation (based on past experience) that no skeptic bloggers would post the survey anyway. So why send it then?
Meanwhile many other bloggers shared their concerns with me. Lucia posted a large list of questions about Cook’s survey methodology here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/dear-john-i-have-questions/
It is a good list, and Lucia’s concerns are valid.
Brandon Schollenberger writes at Lucia’s in comments about some tests he did:
========================================================
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #112328)
May 3rd, 2013 at 12:48 am
For those following at home, the issue I wanted to talk to Lucia about is the non-randomness of this survey. I was curious when two people at SkS said they got an abstract which said (in part):
Agaves can benefit from the increases in temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels accompanying global climate change
I got the exact same abstract when I clicked on the link at SkS. I wondered if that meant there were only 10 abstracts being used at all. I then had a disturbing thought. The earlier Lewandowsky survey had different versions sent to different people for publishing. What if they had done that here? What if each site was sent a link to 10 different abstracts?
To test this, I contacted lucia to get the link she was sent. I then was able to find a site which had already posted the survey, and I got a different link from it. It turned out all of them resulted in me getting the same survey. I concluded everyone was simply getting the exact same 10 abstracts.
I was going to post a comment to that effect when lucia told me she did not get the Agave abstract I referred to. That made me take a closer look. What I found is by using proxies, I was able to get a number of different surveys. Moreover, some proxies got the same surveys as others. That suggests the randomization is not actual randomization, but instead, different samples are given based on one’s IP address.
Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the story. I’ve followed the links with my original IP address again, and I now get a different sample. However, each time I follow the link with the same IP address now, I get the same sample. That suggests I was right about IP addresses determining which sample you get, but there’s an additional factor. My first guess would be time, but if that’s the case, it’s a strange implementation of it. It would have to be something like an hourly (or even daily) randomization or some sort of caching, neither of which makes any sense to me.
Anyway, my head hurts from trying to figure out what screwy “randomization” John Cook is using. I know it’s nothing normal, and it certainly isn’t appropriate, but trying to figure out what sort of crazy thing he might have done is… difficult. I have no idea why he wouldn’t just use a standard approach like having time in seconds be a seed value for an RNG that picks 10 unique values each time someone requests a survey from the server.
=============================================================
So it appears non random after all and has what I (and others) consider fatal sampling issues.
If you want to look at the survey, you can go to Cook’s website and take it there, because until there are some answers forthcoming, like Lucia, I won’t be posting the coded link for this blog.
See Cook’s survey link: Participate in a survey measuring consensus in climate research
Based on past behavior, I trust Cook & Co as far as I can toss a live bull up a silo. Cook’s creepy credentials are contained in his deliberately deceptive site name, “Skeptical Science.” He has not a shred of skeptical perspicacity, and as for science, he swallows climate Lysenkoism raw and whole, and without salt.
Fool me once, shame on you……
I have read a number of papers where the abstract states or implies the paper supports Gorebull Warming in some manner when the actual facts and statistics presented do NOT!!
This is at best a pointless exercise if not actually a propaganda device. As others have already mentioned, it will probably be used to try and show that sceptics simply cannot accept real facts as shown by the OFFICIAL LITCHURCHUR @SM.
In many areas of science, certain terms become popular and people jump on the bandwagon in order to get funding or to help get a paper published. The idea of a “molten globule” in the area of protein folding is an example. But, of course, this never had the politicization OR huge amounts of money dedicated exclusively to this area. In climate science, this trend has been taken to a ridiculous extreme where people will even put the obligatory warning about global warming in a paper that actually mostly says the opposite. And there is heavy handedness against anyone who dares oppose the “consensus” and does not put the magic words in their abstract or introduction or discussion. To be accurate, the poll would have to look at whether the paper actually agreed that their would be CAGW, not just that they used a phrase like “global warming could make x worse”
Anthony;
It looks like a burning paper bag on your front porch. The safe, correct action is to carefully pick it up with a shovel and to bury it. Whatever you do; don’t stomp on it to put out the fire.
I already see other serious issues with this survey:
Example 1: One was an economic model that was evaluating a management technique in the ag sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing more.
Now I conclude that since humans are raising cattle, we are causing these methane emissions, so I could conclude the abstract “implies AGW” or should I answer Nuetral since I have no idea if the authors believe our cultivating cattle implies AGW or not.
Example 2: Another author was discussing the carbon cycle and only mentions that if temperature rose then it appears X would happen. No where was there any comment on GW or AGW.
Nuetral could be the only response as the only words in the abstract involving AGW was ‘if temperatures rise” However AFTER I completed the survey I was told that the authors themselves had an average rating of 3 where I had 3.5 This could ONLY have occurred with some papers authors ranking their paper higher than almost ANY criteria that could be used to assess a 4 or 5 to the abstract. Meaning they have authors opinons (from where who knows) on 12,000 papers that they are going to compare to our responses! Did those authors cite those opinions based solely on the abstract?
Lastly, I believe there is an EXCELLENT sub-study here. After the survey is complete we can see how warmist read into articles their belief: I think it will show that when a warmest reads “Carbon cycles under increased temperatures are less active.” equate to “supports AGW” because that is what is in their mind at ALL times. In fact, Mr. Lews ideation theory could/should be applied directly to that.
Waste of time, could only see a part of the summary, that gave you no idea what the paper was about. As said before some one looking for confirmation of their beliefs.
DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME
Stay away stay away stay away.
Don’t do it. Even with UQ’s ethics people behind it – remember that GLR’s ethics folks gave Gleick a pass and an award, I believe. Ethics Committees in the warming world think it is ethical to exaggerate, lie, cheat, manipulate, retroactively alter articles and records, and break the law for a noble cause. Don’t go near any of these ugly people – you’ll only be tainted.
@ur momisugly kuhnkat says:
May 3, 2013 at 9:13 am
Good point. I linked to a paper that basically stated this cool spring was impossible given the models, and the clown I was debating alleged that it was proof of AGW! I had to break it down to him in baby talk for him to realize I was proving the model the paper offered had just been proven wrong.
Based on the information presented here, the study is a pointless exercise at best, and likely a trap for skeptics. I recommend ignoring it.
No; nope; nada; zip; zilch; nyet.
No ethics = no survey resopnse. Words (especially unethical ones…) have consequences.
I saw it also at Steve Goddard’s site. I advised to ignore it. Cook has an agenda so pffft to him and his ‘survey‘. He is afterall “unreliable”.
Right sidebar on WUWT:
“Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”
As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web…
—————————————————————-
Understatement.
The analysis is being conducted by the University of Queensland in collaboration with contributing authors of the website Skeptical Science.
———————————————————
If they were serious, they should have collaborated with WUWT.
UQ + SS = the fix is in
There’s no advantage in being a participant in such a bogus survey. Cook of Cooking the Books is better off by changing the name of his blog site to that of “Junk Science for the Masses” – however unlikely that is, it is more worthwhile posting on WUWT further literature on global warming and the positive impacts that it brings. Let those who would deceive themselves, be set aside and ignored. They are not worth the appellation of CO2 from the breathing masses.
A simple answer that is easily understood would suffice: Quack! Quack!
Tom in Florida says:
His premise is to determine “level of consensus”, as if consensus in itself is proof of anything
No. His fiction is to give the impression that this effort is a “crowd-sourced” project “with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature”. That is what he is implying, but not what he is saying.
This project is not about judging the the literature. It is about judging the people who take the survey. We know how that goes with these clowns.
A survey to estimate the value of consensus — no value added with a survey like this that I can see. Consensus is NOT science — it’s politics.
At the bottom of the Survey entry page it says:
That’s where to go to find out details of compliance with proper practices for research with human subjects. This office should be able to tell you how rigorous the review process was. It’s supposed to ensure that the survey is conducted ethically — that is, without hidden agendas or tricks that invalidate the results — unless such deceptions are a fundamental objective of the research. I don’t have the time, but somebody with survey research experience might want to follow up on this, especially because there are questions not being answered by the survey creator. Respondents must have the opportunity to have reasonable questions answered or the survey is suspect in terms of its ethics.
With these lovely kind of persons, who have self identified their ineptitude and personal corruption, the only acceptable response is to invite them to , “Have sex & Travel”, in the most offensive manner one is capable of.
Mr Cook is politely inviting us to climb into the sewer and share some Lew paper with him.
Ick.
What manner of disinfectant is necessary to cleanse academia of such creatures?
Come on guys have some fun.
take the survey at skeptical science as if you read it.
Whatever the abstract says answer that the abstract endorses AGW in some way.
hehe. confirmation bias.
Even if the ‘survey’ were methodologically perfect –
I think we already know how much “consensus” there is to be found in “the literature”, after a couple of decades of high powered consensus enforcement. How about a survey with the purpose of estimating the adequacy of the observational evidence presented in those papers instead, John?
I just searched Web of Science:
Topic=((global warming)) OR Topic=((global climate change))
Timespan=1991-2011. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH.
With these results:
ARTICLE (32,275)
PROCEEDINGS PAPER (7,456)
REVIEW (3,074)
BOOK CHAPTER (1,038)
EDITORIAL MATERIAL (1,035)
They already missed 20,000 or so articles to get their 12,000