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…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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….
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.
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.
Lawrence Todd says:
August 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm
My rating for Michael Mann is -7,483
——————
My rating is nasty, brutish & short.
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
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.
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.
wow just went from 994 responses to 1949 response in like 30 seconds
look like all 1000+ response in that 30 seconds loved dana.
Well the voting bots have gone active or the cagw side…
Reminded me of” butch cassidy and the sundance kid line…..”who are those guys?”
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.
Of course if you rate someone as nasty or nice you should always ask yourself “did you get what you deserved?”
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.)
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.
Why do I think that this may be a bit more subtle than nasty or nice…come out, come out where ever you are.
Should be fun.
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.
When do we hear something about 97% agreeing? Seemed a bit warmist
Yeah, it just got hacked by a script. Stick a fork in it.
Yep, looks like somebody hacked it already, the numbers seem to have been switched around.
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????
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.
Was that it? I suppose that’s going to be published as hard science in a doctoral thesis by somebody in the IPCC.
Seems like someone is getting ready for Voting time?