The Tol Poll – rating climate denizens

tol_poll1

Take this at your leisure, answer honestly. Link follows.

Take the Tol Poll here

1. Yes, THAT Richard Tol

2. Yes, the data will be made available, see end page.

UPDATE: the poll has been hacked by some zealot it appears, don’t bother. I’ll advise if there is a second one. -Anthony

UPDATE2:

As far as I can see, there was no hack. Someone got a bot to submit 10,000 answers, though. I cannot remove these at the moment, as I exceeded my quota. The interweb tells me that is temporary.

In case you are wondering…

 

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “The Tol Poll – rating climate denizens

  1. Yeah, that’s all I’m getting too – and it’s in Google Docs, as well as open to editing (at least I can edit it, not sure about Anonymous accounts.) Not good.

  2. lol richard tol is actively logged in checking it right now and i can see his cursor moving. As greg said thats looking like results not questions.

  3. Be nice if they added a few sub sections like “have you personally been censored by this person” or something along that line.

  4. what’s with the “how do you rate yourself” …..last question

    …either way, you’re doomed

  5. I did recognize all the names. It was an interesting poll.

    I do not find Steve McIntyre particularly friendly. Honest forthright, straightforward, accommodating and respectful — maybe — but friendly? I dunno — not if you are a twit it seems — and barely tolerant of the Racehorse Crowd…

    A change in wording to something that catches the idea of respect for the person and the way they put forward their ideas and research, and captures their willingness to work with people willing to learn might be better — but I managed to cope.

    So I thought of the word “friendly” in that way and answered the poll — no problem.

  6. Fantastic!

    I suppose that this BS is a crude attempt to shoot dowm other BD

    I am dismayed by this. I thought that you had better standards.

  7. Link fixed – thanks Anthony.
    Still, it is pretty simplistic. Maybe not BS (per RC Saumarez) – but of small value.

    I guess I passed a couple of minutes, though.

    Auto.

  8. TC “Is this a joke? It’s even more facile than the Cooke stuff.”

    Wait for the surprise.

  9. I filled it in, but I wonder where we are going with this. Polls like this are easily hi jacked.

  10. And what exactly is the purpose of this poll? Science is not a popularity contest, you might as well ask who is prettier.. it would make as much difference..

  11. aye i can kind of see where the poll wants to go maybe. Will be likely to get that result. However even if the result and comments that Tol is likely to be what i’m thinking of… no one would dare publish it because it hits at the heart of the “good guys”.

  12. ok guys, that was a serious question

    The last question “how do you rate yourself”….

    “very worried about the impacts of climate change” is on both ends of the 1-5

    Is that a “1” for not worried at all?
    …or would that be a “5” for very friendly

    The last question is not clear to me at all….

    Anthony Watts……LOL….

  13. I can’t go back and review the results or spreadsheet. Unless if it may be possible to vote again to follow the results, which I did not do.

    Also the ratings of “nasty or friendly” could have been better worded. I just had to make my own interpretation to complete the survey. 97% feel the same way!

  14. Well I can’t answer any of the questions, especially the last as it could have several meanings. How would I know if people are nice or nasty, perhaps I should refer to Santa’s naughty or nice list.

  15. HenrikM says:
    August 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    Annoying, one option should be “do not know”, I do not recognize all the names!

    =====================================================================
    When I didn’t know enough about the name, I left it blank. It still “finished”.
    But I agree, there should be a “I don’t know” option and “friendly” is hardly a term that has any scientific relevance.

  16. And what exactly is the purpose of this poll? Science is not a popularity contest, you might as well ask who is prettier.. it would make as much difference..

    I vote for Judith C as prettiest!

  17. @temp you can do anything you want with it. (except cheat) No rules given by Tol. Widely distributed on twitter.

  18. Nine people rate Hutticelli “very friendly”. Seven people rate Watts “very nasty.” Now come on. Clearly these people are confusing push answers with answering honestly.

  19. Lawrence Todd says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    “My rating for Michael Mann is -7,483”

    :-) :-) :-) :-)

  20. Well I hope the surprise is worth the wait. If the concerns or not about AGW are coupled with likely responses I still can’t see a surprise at the end. How long before we see the result of this nonsense?

  21. ok, so this little “beauty” (popularity) contest has just as much (i.e., just as little) relevance to assessments of climate science as the Cook et al. nonsense??

    I’m guessing this is meant to set up some such comparisons…..

  22. HenrikM says: @ August 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    Annoying, one option should be “do not know”, I do not recognize all the names!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So do what I did, search the name and read what they have to say.

    (In many cases I knew the blog just not the name.)

  23. Latitude says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
    …“very worried about the impacts of climate change” is on both ends of the 1-5

    ….The last question is not clear to me at all….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    You read the question wrong. One is about the effects of the weather (5) and the other is worry about the effects of GOVERNMENT (1)

  24. o the things the human mind see… like how marc morano’s graph is giving everyone the bird… i’m sure he would be proud lol

  25. I don’t agree with judging folk in this manner. I will not take the poll.
    I thought before I opened it that it was about folks views and beliefs, etc…
    I was very dissapointed in such a poll as this.
    It is not for us to judge folk in this type of manner
    Leabe it all in the truth and Good Lord/’s hands
    We may not agree with their ideas, but sorry I
    do not like this poll at all!

  26. If this goes any furthet, this will be a typical “denier blog”. It does nothing for sceptics who are not convinced by the alatmist narrative.

    I know that this can be presented as a couner-poll to those that have produced a preponderence of “believers” in AGW.

    This is a descent into the gutter and any academic credebility that Tol may have is is suspect..

  27. Personally, I think this (rather silly) poll demonstrates the integrity of sceptics:
    Even though the results are (currently) good for the sceptic camp, WUWTers are still quite rightly denigrating the silly exercise.

    Imagine the trumpeting and hallelujahs that would emanate from Rantin’ Romm, Cartoonist Cookie, and Nuttyjelly if the poll results were going their way! They would be extolling the virtues of this ‘scientifically rigorous’ poll.

  28. Idiotic. I’m a nasty person. You’re an idiot? I’ll tell ya. You will go away with no uncertainty I can tell ya. What is Tol’s poll about? Listen when you’re wrong you’re wrong, you’re crooked GCM’s are wrong; you’re all rent seekers you warmist state scientists. And I hate having to pay your wages. One of the smaller inconveniences of living in a total state; which holds true for the US as well as the EU. The parasitic sector. THEY won’t give us the next technological breakthrough; they’ll play with Sim Earth until the money runs out, well thank you very much.

  29. HenrikM says:
    …Annoying, one option should be “do not know”, I do not recognize all the names!…

    I know several of the names, but I have never met or worked with the people. So how can I tell if they’re ‘friendly’ or ‘nasty’? Friendly or nasty say nothing about the accuracy of the views they hold. You can have a really friendly person who believes no end of incorrect things, and a really nasty person who is right all the time….

  30. Weird poll!

    I entered a ‘3’ for the names I’m not very familiar with. I can’t figure out what this poll could possibly be for, I have to admit!

    Also to the poster above: the last question is slightly different, notice it includes the word ‘policy’ on the left, i.e, what’s scarier, the warmists or the warming.

  31. I looked at this but see no point in it. Why personalise the issue? Dana Nuccitelli’s views on AGW and probably much else, are idiotic, but for all I know he could be a very friendly type of guy. Isaac Newton was notoriously ‘nasty’ to his rivals, but that doesn’t make him a bad scientist.

  32. Lawrence Todd says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    My rating for Michael Mann is -7,483
    ——————

    My rating is nasty, brutish & short.

  33. Anthony,

    I wanted very much to make you happy by filling out this poll (I read it) as you requested. I’m sorry, but, I think I would create more helpful data by NOT participating in such a blatantly bogus survey, thus indicating that WUWT bloggers do not place any value on bogus scientific exercises, and, further, that skeptics unlikely to be accurately represented in the population of any such poll. That is, by not participating, it reveals that such polls are inherently skewed toward CAGW believers.

    I would have rated you a 5 (“very friendly”). #[:)]

    Janice

  34. With sincere apologies to Thomas Hobbes.

    Don’t know about solitary, but not poor thanks to enrichment by fraud through extorted grants, except spiritually & morally.

  35. I can see a couple of possible (more or less valid) reasons for those questions. Sadly, if I’m right, then suggesting them would kind of spoil any validity the results might have because it’d be very easy to skew the results if the reason for the questions was obvious.

    In case I’m right, I’d ask those who are assuming this is to do with science being a popularity contest to re-think and answer the poll. Honestly.

  36. Reminded me of” butch cassidy and the sundance kid line…..”who are those guys?”

  37. yeah clearly someone dumped about 1k votes in about 30 seconds all the exact same… not terribly surprising except how sloppy they are at it. Most be one of the unpaid interns not understanding how to use al-gore vote rigging software.

  38. Of course if you rate someone as nasty or nice you should always ask yourself “did you get what you deserved?”

  39. Shame he didn’t use the word “trust”, though I can see the difficulties with this. I assume you will post a link to the final results when this poll closes.

    It could be very amusing to see the responses to this poll on the warmist websites. As a suggestion, maybe you should post some of them (if anyone has the time to waste, trawling through them.)

  40. I already trolled some cult sites will do some more later. I don’t have a glue-huffer account so if someone would be kind enough to post this “fossil fuel funded and powered poll” over there to get them to vote it it’d be good.

  41. Looks to me like somebody has cooked the poll as the results don’t look natural. On each question there is a huge peak on just one number – and not on the extremes. My guess is that someone thinks their own opinion is so massively important they have used a bot to vote 1000 times. A pity as it was an interesting poll.

  42. Yep, looks like somebody hacked it already, the numbers seem to have been switched around.

  43. Sorry Anthony, I am not answering it because @michaelemann and @heidicullen are not on it and media propaganda sites.
    Where is a media poll,? witch media outlet is the biggest promoter of AGW? TWC, CNN or act????

  44. The last question was clearly not understood by the warmists that apparently constitute the majority of the respondents so far.

    A vote of 1 means “Very worried about the impacts of climate policy
    A vote of 5 means “Very worried about the impacts of climate change

    Option 1 is currently ahead with 85% of the vote. Option 5 is in last with 1%.

    I guess no one is very worried about the impacts of climate change any more.

  45. I am amazed! The concept of considering their friendliness had never entered my mind. I am puzzled by the concept of considering nasty the opposite of friendly. In fact, most of the people that I have considered the least advisable to trust have generally been people that seem to be among the most affable. Several of those have been very good salesmen, promoters, or money raisers. I specifically remember one of them who had one trait that sort of fascinated me. I merely had to be in the same room with him to notice a building desire to wash my hands.

    While personality might be important for social occasions, for me creditability on technical or scientific issues requires at least of the appearance of both competence and honesty. Honesty without competence may be fairly benign, but competence without honesty is a fearful combination.

  46. I hope this is an attempt to stick in to Cock up Al (Gore), oops I mean Cook et al (2013).
    Anyway I have more on my mind, I am off to Thailand on Monday for my honeymoon, and I am scared sh**less that everyone will try to kill me due to the temperatures being higher than Greenland.
    Any survival tips?

  47. The hacker or bot seems to have made an error considering the expected vote in the last category.. They voted that they were more concerned about govt policy than the climate itself.

    I’ll wager Anthony finds those responsible if he hasn’t already done so. Inspector Mosher is on the way!

  48. @ Skunky — Just have a good time, LOL, at least you’ll die happy. #[:)]

    (if you are a man, DO NOT admire other women openly — DO NOT tell her she looks anything but beautiful — make HER the focus of your attention and show you are LISTENING by looking at her when she is talking to you — DO NOT complain about how much money anything costs….lol, I could probably think of more, aren’t you glad I didn’t continue typing?)

  49. skunky says:
    August 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    “Any survival tips?”

    Don’t have ice cubes in your drinks.

  50. eyesonu says:
    August 2, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    “I’ll wager Anthony finds those responsible if he hasn’t already done so. Inspector Mosher is on the way!”

    Mosher is an English major, not a network specialist.

    • And it isn’t worth the effort to me. Tol may redo it, maybe not. It was just announced on Twitter this PM, might have been a honey pot to see who would hack it.

  51. I would have rated Roy Spencer as “Very tolerant” had the poll offered that.

    I would have rated Joanne Nova as more attractive than Steve McIntyre. :-) Or me!

    Do the nasties get a stocking full of high-sulphur coal for Christmas? I nearly sent one to a roofer I was having trouble with.

  52. This poll is about us. Will we answer questions about which we have no information. Unless we personally know these folks, we have no idea of their personalities. Unless we sit down with them and talk over a drink – or work with them – or live next door to them. Notice the red asterisk at the top – it says the only required answer is to the very last question. And that is about ourself – and the last word of each question is different – policy or change. Not change and change. And there each of us knows where we are. Thus the only question 99% of us should answer is the last one. This poll is about how glib we will be with our opinions. Sort of like that old experiment where they told participants to turn up the voltage regardless of the screams of pain. Well here, fill out the answers even if you have not a clue. Oh, and no red asterisk says you don’t have to.

  53. OldWeirdHarold says:
    August 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    > Yeah, it just got hacked by a script. Stick a fork in it.

    Maybe, if the hack came from a few IP addresses, they should be easy to flush. I wouldn’t bother with a more clever hack, but then again, the warmists may be getting desperate. Or maybe the poll is to collect IP addresses and organizations, with a goal of rating their friendliness or nastiness toward CAGW and the skeptical view.

  54. My pleasure to help Richard Tol in whatever his endeavor is intended to demonstrate.
    I think… :)

  55. Wow, that’s some of the worst poll boting I’ve ever seen. It’s like they weren’t even trying to hide it.

  56. kind of like the polling of 1347 (or there bouts) scientists to get their beloved 97% by cherry picking what was actually counted.. In this case they are dropping thousands of votes to show superior proof that CAGW is real…

    or something like that… :)

  57. I have to disagree with John Servais. I’ve never meet any of the people on this poll, but I think I can safely judge how nasty or friendly many of them are based on their writings, and especially their Tweets. A man’s (or woman’s) character can usually be judged by what, and how, they speak in the company of their freinds and peers, and in the end that is what a blog really is. And Tweets even more so, as they are often posted quickly without great forethought.

  58. I see what Richard has done here. The majority vote the alarmists as not particularly nice, but the the results are massaged to show the opposite, a playful jab at John Cook’s consensus paper.

  59. If I were to do this poll again I would fill it out differently. I gave Steve and Judith 5’s, but while I consider neither to be in any way nasty, they are more polite and open then what I would call friendly.
    Mr. Watts I gave a 4. Sorry Anthony, while I do consider you friendly, you also take quite a bit of delight in showing off the warmist’s follies.
    Come to think of it, I guess that puts me about 3. :)

  60. I agree with “cynical_scientist” . In evaluating climate bloggers what matters is whether you think they make good arguments. Similarly one can be convinced of CAGW without being “worried” by it, or disagree with policy without being “worried”.

    Overall not the best choice of words IMO

  61. Haven’t we learned anything yet? These kinds of polls are useless. This one is also silly. What are you after here, Watts? A group hug? Well, you opened your arms and that one zealot kneed you in the groin.

  62. It didn’t matter whether the names were fmiliar because the only question requiring an answer was the last which was about the level of concern presented by climate policy or climate change – no brainer the greatest risk we face as a free civilisation is climate policy.

  63. @ 4:37 the Google spread sheet was visible and editable, with about 688 vote counts, It is possible someone edited the number on the vote value boxes to close to 1000 instead of 1-5, if the vote count is just a tally of the entries, then one pass thru the spread sheet would have been enough. I cannot re access it again or from my history files, but Google now blocks multiple attempts to enter the poll. Bots may have not been required.

  64. “It didn’t matter whether the names were fmiliar because the only question requiring an answer was the last which was about the level of concern presented by climate policy or climate change – no brainer the greatest risk we face as a free civilisation is climate policy.”

    No brainer? As in no brain seems to have thought it through. Somebody who was very worried about climate change would therefore be necessarily worried about climate policy.

  65. Quite a while ago, there was an interwebby survey on something or other. I voted, clicked on the button to see the results and got a pretty graph.

    Then I noticed that the graphed values were embedded in the URL. Manipulating the URL would get whatever results I wanted to see. There was no clue on the page that those weren’t real results. ;-)

    I took a screenshot and sent that to the guy running the survey, along with the URL. No response other than an accusation of “hacking” his web site.

  66. WUWT used to be a blog about science. Now it’s all about personalities and petty squabbling. Any credibility that WUWT may have had in the past is long gone as far as I am concerned. But giving space to this sort of rubbish is a further level of descent!

  67. “Very nasty” and “very friendly” — is the thought that we impute bad qualities to those who do not share our opinions and impute good qualities to those who do share our opinions?

    If not then this scale makes no sense. “Very unfriendly” and “very friendly” would be opposites and would make a decent rating scale — but “very nasty” just is not the same thing as “very unfriendly”. and really can’t be used as an opposite to “very friendly”.

    Was i suppose to judge these people on how “friendly” they were to my to my concerns? I really did not do so. If I had there would only be 1’s and 5″ in my rating.

    I guess in a real sense what i did was this — those I rated from 3 to 5 all share (in my opinion) high integrity and their numbers differed only because I took into account how familiar i was with their writings. I deemed them all to have high integrity but I rated them differently solely on how familiar I was with them.

    The ratings of 1 to 2 were used to designate those whose integrity I doubted. All such could have been 1’s but I gave all but one a 2 out of some strange charitable impulse. How familiar I was with their writings had nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, since the scale was unclear I really had no idea oh what I was to rate these people. My numbers are thus not compatible with those given by others. I do not know how this survey can be used for anything whatsoever — unless you are trying to demonstrate that we like those who share our opinions and degrade those who don’t..

    Eugene WR Gallun

  68. Some of you critics need to notice that it is Richard Tol’s poll not Anthony’s. And before getting too critical lets give Richard a chance to tell us what the poll was all about.

    I think it is an interesting poll. It clearly has struck a sensitive spot with some people to judge by the reactions. I’m waiting for Richard to tell us what he thinks has been revealed. One thing is clear though. Internet polls on controversial matters are generally worthless because they are easily destroyed by any individual who cares strongly enough about the results to wish to do so.

  69. Nigel Harris says:


    nigel, I guess you missed the articles about solar flares, Arctic volcanoes, sea-level studies…

  70. Richard Tol is a very nice person but this is a very silly poll. Always think when designing a questionnaire: “What am I going to do with the answers? What might someone else do with them?”

  71. Nigel Harris says:
    August 3, 2013 at 1:08 am
    “WUWT used to be a blog about science. Now it’s all about personalities and petty squabbling. Any credibility that WUWT may have had in the past is long gone as far as I am concerned. But giving space to this sort of rubbish is a further level of descent!”

    What is your opinion of Nigel Harris
    ( ) – drive-by Concern Troll
    ( ) – bit of a Concern Troll
    ( ) – dunno
    ( ) – typical WUWT reader
    ( ) – long time WUWT reader

  72. milodonharlani says:
    August 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm
    Lawrence Todd says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    My rating for Michael Mann is -7,483
    ——————
    My rating is nasty, brutish & short.
    ============================================
    And balding

  73. There was a period in my long career when I wrote and tested questionnaires. Complicated things are they and not for amateurs. This is written by an amateur and will therefore not provide credible results. I haven’t bothered.

  74. Wait, you mean to tell me that climate changers need to rig voting outcomes ?
    Finally a correlation supported by causation!

  75. John Servais says:
    August 2, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    This poll is about us. Will we answer questions about which we have no information
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    More or less my thought. I suspect that (without the bot attack) the results would be a little more subtle than that, though.

    You can get an impression of how “nice or nasty” someone is without meeting them in person – I’ve read enough about Saddam Hussein to be pretty sure he wasn’t in the “nice” camp! But I suspect that the two “sides” going by the last question would show markedly different attitudes to rating the personalities listed.

    Personally, for example, I find Gavin reasonably “nice” (ie: generally courteous and pleasant in his missives) even if I disagree wholeheartedly with him. Nutcake, Romm, Morano and Delingpole, on the other hand, I find more or less unpleasant and will honestly say so regardless of how their views on AGW match mine.

    I doubt (although I could be wrong) that many of the warmistas out there would extend the same objectivity to rating Anthony, Steve or even Judith!

  76. Not your poll Anthony but no reason to feature it here. Let’s stick to the science. By all means show up the devious tricks of the warmistas but if you want to do personality update us on your family’s progress (healthwise). Yes, a goodly number of your fans are interested in the politest way. All the Best.

  77. I think that Richard Tol must be doing more here than offering an obviously silly poll.

    Until he reveals his purpose I will suppose that he is going to be making some point(s) about how silly polls are used and misused by people like Cook.

  78. Only person I didn’t *know* is Tamsin Edwards. No idea what these people are like IRL, so most got a middle rating. Others rated according to how they have responded to me and how I have (most often) seen them respond to others.

    Gave myself a middle rating, neither worried about climate change or climate policy, although I think that the bifurcation is a false polarisation.

    Wonder what the surprise will be. This isn’t a scientfic poll in method, content, and, therefore outcome. Probably about perception.

  79. Um, so there was no hack, just a bot?? OH! That makes me feel MUCH better about the survey! Let Science(tm) continue!

  80. Several short comments:
    I also didn’t finish the poll, before it was stuffed yesterday. I just exited as I’m not comfortable giving responses that are so vague, or at least lack clarity.

    That said, I had trouble with the five positions of a vote between a negative absolute and a positive absolute, possibly viewed as negative infinity to positive infinity. With the middle position as neutral just what is supposed to be the rating of positions two and four? Halfway to a negative or positive infinity?

    Rephrasing again, a graph of this has the left hand side falling to infinity and the right side climbing to infinity; y=x³ (y=x(cubed) if my html superscript attempt fails).

    All right infinite nasty for characters like Nutticelli and Romm is all right with me, and completely without a conscience twinge; same as infinite nice being a good vote for Anthony, McIntyre and Montford (Bishop Hill to the uninitiated).

    Not a whit of this tells anyone anything about climate science, change or policy.

    Which brings us to other poll personages; e.g. Tamsin Edwards , Gavin Schmidt and Delingpole. Not forgetting Marc Morano or Monbiot.

    Whether Tamsin is nasty or nice is not something I have a clear concept of; she is scientific, intelligent, well spoken and not given to ad hominems or other insults. But these traits are not up for personal opinions.

    Gavin is another example; blunt, sometimes harsh, short on patience are exhibited traits. So are intelligent, informed if perhaps judgmental and apparently as unlikely to retreat as a wolverine is.
    Nasty? Certainly not in the Nuttifruiticelli or Romm sense.
    Nice? again, certainly not in the same sense as Anthony, Steve McIntyre or Bishop Hill

    Delingpole forms a definite counterpoint example; nasty? Oh yes! But not gang member nasty as exhibited by the warmists, instead he sharpens and helps light all of the petards so well loved by the warmists on which they’re keep hoisting themselves. Well, I’m personally glad Delingpole is performing his role so well.
    Nice? well, yes; Delingpole adheres to loudly telling the truth and that is a trait of nice, right? So the truth hurts, are we scientific principle people complaining? Nope, only the eco-looney and green money trough dependent. Also good for me.

    Do any of these three or Marc Morano deserve a middling two or four position poll vote? No. The Moonbat one really deserves his own separate poll as do so many politicians.

    Now the last question is a real bugger! I will not vote for any position on that question!
    If I’m very worried about Climate Policy the eco-loons will read into that a push for taxes and they’ll also get the same result if I’m worried about Climate Change. Since, in my opinion, that’s the most negative takeaway about that question; I’ll take the null position and write in ‘Donald Duck’!

    Have fun with your poll Richard! Good Lord. I can think of any number of ways to enjoy myself and none of them loo or sound like false climate poll fun. This particular poll is too far along the subjective personal opinion range… (I put the Lewpy and Cook polls in for range reference)

    Objectivity Subjectivity Tol Poll Lewpy & Cook Polls

  81. Stephen Richards says: @ August 3, 2013 at 4:46 am

    There was a period in my long career when I wrote and tested questionnaires. Complicated things are they and not for amateurs. This is written by an amateur and will therefore not provide credible results. I haven’t bothered.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Since Richard Tol has written a text book on Climate Economics: Climate Economics: Economic analysis of climate, climate change, and climate policy, I think this poll has more to it than is on the surface.

  82. How did Joe Romm score a 75 percent “3” rating? Joe Romm a 3??? You’ve gotta be joking. This guy is the nastiest of the nasties. He’s DeSmogBlog style nasty… and that’s pretty nasty!

  83. Richard Tol
    Suggest reviewing the term “Friendly” versus “similar views”. I may highly agree with someone’s views technically without considering them “friendly”. cf Dilbert on Engineers

  84. Looks like my left, equal sign, right symbols didn’t make it.

    Another try.

    Objectivity <&Equal;&Equal;> Subjectivity <&Equal;&Equal;> Tol Poll <&Equal;&Equal; faith &Equal; fantasy ∞ Lewpy & Cook Polls

  85. David Hagen,

    Thanks for sharing that hilarious and witty Dilbert video. Loved it! ENGINEERS ARE WONDERFUL. Social skills are overrated. Some people get their joy from personal relationships, others get their joy from designing and fixing things — more power to them #[:)]. However, I think engineers should, as kind and pleasant as many of them are, only marry other engineers (whether employed as one or not doesn’t matter) … .

    Janice

  86. Gail Combs says:

    August 3, 2013 at 11:36 am

    It most surely has but it is still useless for any meaningful purpose. If he just wants to find the right answer then I’m sure he will find it.

  87. It is possible to block a bot, they always have patterns. If they don.t have a unique IP address they will have a similar voting pattern. Google must be able to detect this and blacklist the bots from attempting to corrupt other polls on their system. It is always worth pointing out any bot attack and it’s associated IP(s) to Google who should blacklist them from all polls.

  88. UPDATE: the poll has been hacked by some zealot it appears, don’t bother. I’ll advise if there is a second one. -Anthony

    Care to share any originating IP Addresses?

    .

  89. I gave Joe Romm a three. He may be willing to fight hard and ruthlessly (nasty) but there is no doubt in my mind that he wants what’s best for the world (benevolent). That seemed like a 3.

    Dana Nuticelli plays dirty and is a hypocrite who takes Tetratech pay and fabricates evidence like the 97% survey. He was the only one who got a 1 from me.

    Most of the others seemed like 4s and 5s. They openly debate on the internet and stand by their views instead of flowing like slime round the blogosphere.

    For example, G Monbiot and A Watts both got 4 – not quite perfect as they lose their tempers with some obstinate trolls.

    But to err is human.

  90. Anthony said “wait for the surprise”. Don’t any of you think it is quite extraordinary that Anthony, who has consistently opposed adhoms and other distractions from the science, has now allowed a poll to be posted on WUWT that invites “very nasty” ratings on prominent individuals in the climate science debate? This poll is surely not what it purports to be. Maybe it is aimed at the methods of the “97%” polls. Maybe it is seeing how many will happily relate a person’s view of a scientific matter to an attribute such as nastiness. I am looking forward to the surprise, even if it is such that many of us are embarrassed by it.

  91. so, did we get an IP for the bot attack? I’m guessing they aren’t clever enough to use an ip hider…are we looking at a US university by any chance?

  92. From “Very Nasty” to “Very Friendly”? I don’t know any of these people personally, and don’t rate people like that, anyway. This has nothing to do with science, politics, ideology, or anything else relevant that I can see. I hate surveys like this in general, but this one takes the cake.

    /Mr Lynn

  93. Re: “A-th-ny said ‘wait for the surprise’. *** I am looking forward to the surprise, … .” [Mike Jonas 1:41PM 8/3/13]

    Me, too. Sigh. BUT IT IS GETTING KIND OF HARD TO KEEP WAITING! Better be good……

    Not as good as these surprises, though, I’m sure….

    Well, had to SOMETHING to bring a little joy to this thread-of-disappointment.
    #[:)]

  94. See this example about how polls should be done:

    Yes, Prime Minister fans will already have seen it!

  95. Graphic Conception,

    Thanks for the laugh. And, for the unfortunate truth. Polls are, indeed, largely, mis (or even MAL) information far more than they are information. Hm, kind of sounds like an “ensemble mean” we all know about.

    Glad you posted — I was afraid I had KILLED the thread with my apparently compl-ETELY unhelpful post above yours. Well, at least one person in the world was made happier by it.

    Still waiting for the surprise… .

    Janice

  96. Janice Moore says:
    August 3, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    and
    graphicconception says:
    August 3, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    I didn’t take the Poll either for the same reason and because it is a little silly and obvious. I know Tol is a skeptic but he has disappointed on a couple of threads here. One where he wrote a rebuttal of an AGW paper that the editor didn’t accept and I found I agreed with the editor. This WUWT is a tough place.

  97. My first reaction was to skip it. Then I read that only one question was “required”, so I answered that one. I’m either concerned that policies aren’t doing enough to save the planet, or too much. How do you tell which?

    Just now, I revisited it to see how the voting was going. I didn’t see a “view results” option, so in desperation, I hit “submit” without entering anything. Sure enough, that one question is required… so I voted again. I don’t usually double-vote, but I was “forced” to. Thanks!

    I guess if we arbitrarily subtract 10,000 votes from the winner in each category, we might see something. But what? I sure hope we don’t have to wait too long to find out what this was really about!

    Speaking of waiting… how’s that REPLICATE poll coming along, A. Scott?

  98. Okay, Anthony….. still waiting……….. peering out the front window, looking for YOU………….. Getting nose smudges on the glass (see my post at 3:16PM) ………….. WHAT ABOUT THE SURPRISE???? (did you go out to buy us all ice cream?)

    Checking out until Monday afternoon.

    (If it IS ice cream, save some for me!!!)

  99. Amazing, some genius has actually spent a time writing a script that can fake poll replies in order to render the poll useless.

    Why would that be even vaguely worth the effort? What are they affraid of?

    Are they scared that it may show that Judith Curry has more cred than George Monbiot ? Shock! Horror!

    Aren’t they interested to see whether people are more concerned about where policy is going than where the climate is going? Don’t they need to know whether they are “winnging” or not?

    Still, it’s well established method now, if you don’t like the results, you change the data.

    typical warmist stupidity.

  100. Nasty=somebody who sneers at others and calls them deniers or old has beens.
    I don’t think it’s hard to pick the nasty ones.
    Marc is my favourite.He is always laughing.his site is a bit nasty in that he publishes e-mail addresses.

  101. When a new poll is devised, one thing it might be interesting to see is the change in attitudes, (or the perceived change in attitudes,) of various individuals, over the years.

    For example, Steve McIntyre was initially exceedingly polite, and set a good example for hotheads like myself, who was/are prone to going up like a sheet of flame. However he had been subjected to such bad manners, despite his good manners, that I think I have detected an increasingly caustic edge to his wit. (I don’t see how anyone could expect otherwise, especially after Climategate.)

  102. I dont get it. Why are we encouraged to call people we disagree with nasty?
    Purpose might be to divine which “side” is more prone to labeling and small mindedness.

  103. Steve McIntyre and Dana Nuccitelli changed position in the poll. Right now Dana is happy about 79% friendly-votes:>((

  104. I only answered the required question. All the other questions that I did not answer were to much like voting for prom king and queen in high school.

    John

  105. pauline says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Well I can’t answer any of the questions, especially the last as it could have several meanings. How would I know if people are nice or nasty, perhaps I should refer to Santa’s naughty or nice list.

    Me too. Even if the poll hadn’t been ruined by a bot, I wouldn’t have taken it anyway. There’s no option for “Couldn’t care less.” That option would probably separate the sceptics from the zealots. Sceptics are not interested in personality.

  106. Hmm. You might want to talk to Mark Morano about sceptics not being interested in personality. Wait. You are right, he is not a sceptic. Sorry about that.

  107. I agree the friendly/nasty thing is rather childish and mostly irrelevant.

    I think James Delingpole is close to ‘very nasty’ but talks more sense than George Monbiot who I’m sure is a nice bloke.

    I’m not sure where I would place J.Curry on that scale but I respect her open mindedness, scientific integrity and her early, prominent stance on the need to get back to objective science in climatology.

    Perhaps the next poll can ask more sensible questions.

  108. It’s a poll asking what your unqualified opinion of somebody elses social disposition, is.

    It’s not asking you to know the person and do a psych evaluation of them.

    It’s not meant to be a challanging poll to take.

Comments are closed.