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
Justification of ones viewpoints, shouldn’t waste the valuable time of productive members of society.
Should it ?
Or, am I missing the point of this latest attempt to obtain the desired data, which has proven to be rather elusive ?
I just looked at Cook’s SKS site, with the posting of the survey on 1 May. There are about 20 comments from folk who’ve completed the survey and, strangely, even they don’t seem to be total
AGW airheads.
If Cook can get 20 respondents in two days, I wonder how many more will trickle in?
I also looked at Joe Romm’s Climate/Think Progress site. He hasn’t mentioned the survey at all, so none from that blog source.
It’s not looking good for The Black Hats. ….Lady in Red
Steven Mosher says:
May 3, 2013 at 10:46 am
ITS NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE PAPER.
_________
Of course, and it never was. You summed up my point brilliantly, Mosher.
Good on you.
Here’s a survey: Is John Crook
a) a fraudster?
b) stupid?
c) a combination of the above?
If there were 12000 fools, what difference would it make?
Sorry I missed the obvious, what was visitor traffic on that site Super Duper Sceptical Science, before Anthony posted the Cookers request?
How big a spike did Cook’s trolling of truly sceptical sites generate?
I suspect the traffic at SS closely resembled paint drying prior to Cook’s attention begging.
“let sleeping dogs lie”, not to mention “Pandora’s box”.
Who ever penned “it is like shooting fish in a barrel”, never envisioned carnage like this.
The consensus of 12000 is defeated by the truth of just one. It’s a senseless survey from an insignificant theologian not worthy of anyones time or effort.
This survey is faulty for many reasons sited above. However there are three serious fallacies that have not been clearly stated. Having reviewed papers in the past, I have found that an abstract frequently incorrectly summarizes the final conclusions that you would make after you have read and dissected the material in the paper. Concluding what an author(s) has really said from an abstract used to catalog a paper for archiving is a little like claiming a book condensed by Readers Digest is not worth reading. Secondly judging from an abstract whether a paper is pro AGW is not valid if the paper has nothing to do with climate change. Observations by authors who seek continued support for their research are most likely to infer that the results show that there is an effect of some climate influence that may be global warming. Think of the list of hundreds of scientific papers that has been compiled that documents the many research papers that blame global warming without having eliminated any other possible explanations. Finally the time frame posited by Cook is too short. Did climate research only begin in 1991? Have any of the authors who have published paper changed their position on climate since they published?
My conclusion is that if this survey is competed the climate science community should everything it its power to prevent its publication of any reported results for the many reasons stated above in this BLOG.
I’ve seen this survey being linked in several blogs – I’ve decided that, considering the source, I’ll decline.
Why? “…Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting…”
If he runs the results of this survey like he does his blog, how can anyone be sure their comments or answers are being truly represented?
To Kadaka May 3, 11:19 am
Got to love it. Absolutely perfect.
Eugene WR Gallun
Mr. Knights! John Cook was lurking here yesterday and stole your idea!
Roger Knights @4:34PM on 5/2/13 on San Jose Book Burning Thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/san-jose-state-university-meteorology-decides-burning-books-they-dont-agree-with-is-better-than-reading-them/
“Here’s a thesis (or dissertation?) idea for a grad student: Survey a sample of university libraries–say all the ones whose names begin with an “S”–and report on the ratio of the climate contrarian books they contain to the number of consensus books. Since most of these libraries have online catalogs, it shouldn’t be hard to do.”
Hmm. Maybe the ratio of leftist to rightist books on other topics could be sampled too.”
******************************************************
And THAT’s why Cook couldn’t come up with that list, Anthony. Couldn’t do that in less than 24 hours!
FUGEDDABOUDIT.
Like someone above said already, if we want to do such research project, we will do it ourselves.
Only a narcissist like that would have the audacity to assign scientist bloggers of the caliber of those on WUWT homework!
Tom in Florida says:
May 3, 2013 at 8:55 am
You said it all.
The advice of someone wiser than I: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6
Hi, aetheressa,
WELCOME! I’m pretty new here, too, so I really don’t have much call to be on the welcoming committee. I’m not even a scientist! Yeah, this blog is a GREAT place to learn. I feel like a little kid sitting in the back of the science faculty lounge at a fine university, listening to all these fine minds here. They have been very kind.
Have fun posting!
[and, in case you also are not well-versed in science, let me encourage you with blogger John F. Hultquist’s welcoming post to me: “You know things. Share.” Do.]
To Janice Moore: Welcome from me to you :-). WUWT is the best place in the world to learn the truth on AGW. There are 1000’s of fine minds here. Enjoy.
john robertson says: “I suspect the traffic at SS closely resembled paint drying prior to Cook’s attention begging.”
John, I was thinking something more like green scum forming on the pond.
Steven Mosher May 3 at 12:05 pm
One of my favorite all time quotes is — “What we have here is failure to communicate.”
What people say and what their words actually mean are two entirely different things. The Spanish fascists captured the poet Lorca and the words sent to his captors from on high were — “Give him coffee, lots of coffee”. So they took him outside and shot him. Those were “code words” that only the involved people understood.
What about this statement — “We are from the government and we are here to help you”? What that statement means to most people has absolutely nothing to do with what the words simply say. To most people it means that the government is about to turn someone’s life into a horror movie.
Let us remember something about the phrase “global warming”. IN ACTUAL USE it has no single meaning. Warmists use the statement “97% believe in global warming” to demand action be taken to prevent CAGW. What are clearly apples and oranges are lumped together by them as “fruit”
That skeptics (or sceptics) would have high negatives toward this phrase is therefore not surprising. How it has been used and abused in the past dictates how it is likely being used in a current context. The history of this phrase is that it comes from the warmists. They are the ones who use it most often. And it means to them whatever they want it to mean depending on circumstances. And they always use it in a way that supports their “beliefs”.
So the phrase “global warming” — how do you understand it? Do you understand it through parsing it into two dictionary definitions of the individual words and combining those — or do you understand it through how it has been used and abused in the past? Is it surprising that so many skeptics (or sceptics) would hear the phrase “give him coffee, lots of coffee” in it?
This is not a reading comprehension test. Or maybe it is — of Cook — who fails it. Oh, and also of you.
Eugene WR Gallun
.
Timeo danaos dona ferentes!
Cook’s “scientific” survey looks to be nothing more than a propaganda piece as a way to label skeptics as deniers. They have already released a paper
“http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013.pdf”
“Cook et al. (2013) reviewed nearly 12000 climate abstracts and received 1200 self-ratings from the authors of climate science publications.Using both methodologies, they found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate science literature that humans are causing global warming. There appears to be a gap in the understanding of the climate between experts and the lay public, and a common denominator between all the examples reported here and in the supporting material is that they all represent a contribution towards the agnotology associated with the climate change issue.”
I expect Cook to draw a comparison between the survey from scientists with the survey contrasting AGW believers with skeptics to be able to apply the denier label to skeptics.
Well as much as I’d like to read Lucia’s musings on the subject, I can’t since she has rather foolishly blocked the IPs of Mullvad.net, a popular European VPN service. I guess it doesn’t matter since there’s only three-quarters of a billion people here and VPN usage is decreasing due to governments finally realising that they really have no use-case for eaves-dropping on everything everyone does.
Eugene WR Gallun: Global Warming has many meanings: “We are all going to die, save the planet from the evil west (Read that as the USA), more goverment more control, the distribution of wealth, capitalism is evil, big oil/gas/coal and big WOOD (lol.) also stop eating meat, live in a mud hut, burn dung for fuel and population control, etc, etc etc. Yes the list goes on and on. We realists can ALL read the code. How about “Send them for treatment”?
We are at war the likes of Cook. Evil only prospers when good men and women do nothing. In this fight against CAGW the good men and women are doing an amazing job. I thank you all at WUWT, Hero’s all of you. :-))
I will take the survey the same day that Cook condemns Gleick for his fraudulent behaviour. Until then, I consider that Cook has no integrity
I would LOVE to have the time on my hands that Mr Cook seems to have. He enjoys playing “important scientist” , but it is just playing,,,, so seeing as you Anthony are professional in every sense of the word, I would avoid wasting your time…. 😉
Looks like Cook wants us to do his cherry picking for him. Cheeky b—er.