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
DirkH says:
“Why does the science of Antropogenic Global Warming need surveys to bolster its credibility?”
Very good question. Got an answer, Mr Cook?
I suspect the answer is due to the fact that the planet is being very uncooperative with the alarmists’ predictions, so Cook has changed tack, and is revisiting the ‘consensus’ argument.
Consensus is not science. And there isn’t even a real consensus.
But it’s all Cook’s got.
I guess the Lew roll ran down and they need more paper…
Anyone would be crazy to trust Cook or any of them. How many times do we have to be worked over before we tell these green cheaters to go leap? They are treating skeptics as dumb fodder for their “research”. They just want the numbers, they’ve already got the results.
It won’t matter how you answer, it won’t matter if you “have fun” or if you take it seriously, any participation will be used against skeptics. For that matter, any NON-participation will likely be worked against us, too. It’ll be a case of damned if we don’t and damned if we do. Watch and see. When it’s all said and done, they’ll bring out the big stick and beat us over the head with their “findings”.
I’m with the majority here. Do barge poles comes in larger sizes?
A survey form ‘the Teams’ chief bitch and person who has a recorded of lying about the data his ‘collected’ from past one’s . What could possible gone wrong with that !
And while people are doing it , I have some snake oil they may be interested in .
10000-1 the ‘results’ are already written, for in true AGW style the data be dammed all that matters is ‘the cause ‘
The selection of papers is real weird. Take a look at this one:
Earliest Silurian faunal survival and recovery after the end Ordovician glaciation: evidence from the brachiopods
ABSTRACT
Earliest Silurian (basal Llandovery) brachiopod faunas are surveyed and listed from around the globe, and divided between Lower Rhuddanian and Upper Rhuddanian occurrences. 60 genera are known from the Lower Rhuddanian within 20 superfamilies and there are 87 genera in 25 superfamilies in the Upper Rhuddanian. The 29 areas surveyed span the globe, both latitudinally and longitudinally. Only six superfamilies are Lazarus taxa which are known both from the Ordovician and Middle Llandovery (Aeronian) and later rocks but have not been recorded from the Rhuddanian. These are surprising results, since many previous studies have inferred that the Rhuddanian was a time of very sparse faunas. The global warming that followed the latest Ordovician (Hirnantian) ice age did not proceed quickly, with an ice-cap probably present through at least the Llandovery. There is a marked absence of Lower Rhuddanian bioherms even at low palaeolatitudes; however, the ecological recovery rate was far faster than that following the end-Permian mass extinction event. The partitioning of the Rhuddanian shelf faunas into well-defined benthic assemblages progressed slowly over the interval.
I wonder what “the level of consensus ….. regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming” is for that paper?
We just haven’t realized what “Rhuddanian” and “Llandovery” are code words for 🙂
Another problem with this survey is that the majority of the public doesn’t form opinions on the basis of abstracts of scientific papers.
Misleading MSM soundbites are the gospel of the low information voters. And for many, no amount facts will change their opinions.
Why all the commotion, ignore him.
Cookie is a lazy boy.
Why doesn’t he simply go through the WUWT archives and follow the many thousands of discussions/arguments and analysis of ‘peer reviewed’ literature.
The CAGW position has been taken apart piece by piece over the past ten years…he wants you and us to to do it all again in front of him, and if you refuse this will be proof that WE are wrong!!!
If we did want to play his game we could start with a ‘peer reviewed’ by…Lewandowsky maybe?
I think he’s lonely ever since Lew had to scuttle out of town…a bit like Hardy without Laurel.
Where Mr. Cook is concerned I would not trust anything he comes out with. A famous man once said: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Sh**. Cooks already got my number. Don’t know that the rest of you have been doing.
If I got a query like that from John Cook, the reply would be a very firm, “Go jump in a very deep lake.. wearing concrete boots”
Cook is very arrogant, and thinks he can annoy skeptic blogs with his confirmation bias.
I highly recommend everyone take part in this survey, and select option 2 for each abstract no matter what. That will ensure the survey (and QU grant money) is destroyed.
Unite and destroy.
Josh C says:
May 3, 2013 at 8:56 am ……………………..
Why not do a ‘study’ ourselves? But do it open. I mean, follow the same methodology, but keep it all out and accessible. My kids make FB surveys all the time, so there is no rocket science to this, mostly it would be setting up some questions, and we could even have a 5 point scale for how much people agree or disagree with statements.
———————————
Josh, first let me say I like the idea. It makes sense to me as a layman.
With that said the only thing I could see when first reading was Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney talking about them and the other kids putting on a show in the barn.
I think it was your enthusiasm and tone of the statement.
Again, I tried to click the like button.
cn
NeedleFactory says: May 3, 2013 at 10:31 am
With all due respect, NeedleFactory, suggesting that Cook a “proven amateur” (in any of his CAGW advocacy-activist endeavours, pseudo-scholarly or otherwise) is a slur and an insult to ethical, respectable – and respected – amateurs in many endeavours.
Therefore, I would request that you kindly retract this unfounded claim 😉
Hilary Ostrov
In social science, consensus is an accepted measure of adequacy of a hypothesis. The fact that pro-AGW activists continue to claim consensus as proof indicates that they think climate science is a social science and not a natural science. I think this categorisation is misguided but for most people the difference is not understood.
Assessment of differing viewpoints is an acceptable social scientific topic of research. It would have nothing to do with the underlying content of the papers, and so could not be used to prove/disprove AGW. Indeed, social science rarely recognises the concept of truth, simply seeking (non-predictive) explanation of social phenomena. It’s a measure of how mixed up climate science is that it tries to use both natural and social science methods at the same time.
As for pro-AGW papers, it’s well known in academia that any grant proposal is more likely to be accepted if it includes AGW somewhere. Academics need the money so they use the words they know will help them to secure it.
These guys are desperately trying to prove that sk(c)eptics have some sort of mental deficiency. Setup, indeed.
Mark
As Enstein said (or was it Feinman 🙂 “you only need one good paper to prove an hypothesis wrong”. What are the chances (1:1200?) that I will get to see the abstract of that paper? What are the chances that the abstract of that paper is actually in the 12,000? Do I think Cook is honest?
One question I can answer:
Will I bother with the survey? No.
There can be a lot of caching servers in any internet path. Unless they took steps to prevent it, it is quite probable that the first request from a location loads the cache and from then on (until enough activity pause for the cache to flush) everyone will get the same page…
Looks to me like they have all of methodology, technical, and bias issues…
Don’t participate I would say. Don’t know about this Cook guy (reading WUWT on and off) but his invitation is smelly. Just a gut feeling. Consensus has nothing to do with science and everyting with politics. He is trying to frame. It’s a ploy, a NLP trick or something.
I have done the survey . I gave the answers as 7 to each of the 10 questions. I thanked him for the survey. Easy.
A survey measuring whether people who read blogs believe that a survey of scientists indicates that most scientists agree that CO2 absorbs IR. It this what the “science” of psychology has come to? Where do I get an application to do this kind of research?
The sensible response to Cook would have been, “I won’t post a link to your survey on my site and I won’t make your survey a topic of discussion. I have little confidence that you are able to carry out scientific research involving human subjects in what i regard is an ethical manner”.
Introduction to Cook and Lewandowskism:
1. Formulate opinion
2. Write paper
3. Gather survey data
4. Discard data inconsistent with paper
5. Submit paper
6. Pick up Royal Society grant and move to Bristol
(and given the rich rewards – why would anyone do anything else?)
I haven’t read a single comment above. Any survey like what it seems Cook is proposing will produce a result that supports a consensus position because people rarely write papers that will prove something is wrong. If a simple fact like flat temperatures proves a theory wrong one does not have to write a paper for peer review on it. It’s just a fact. We all rely on the scientist who is proven wrong by a simple fact to eat some humble pie and admit they are wrong. I guess having to write a disproving paper is what the very confused illogical consensus freaks think should happen. And the need to refer to climate change as opposed to climate immediately loads the result. Don’t go near it, Anthony.
Long time reader, second time poster….
You guys are the highlight of my days sometimes…(I don’t get out much)! Not only wicked smart, but hilarious. I started giggling at A.Akhbar and by the time I got to jorgekafkazar I was laughing loud enough to draw some serious attention from my neighbors.
Bless you Anthony for all your hard work here. I honestly don’t know how you stay sane…but I’m guessing the regulars here have something to do with that. I know they make ME smile all the time.