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…
Ah, I think I see the purpose of this. Interesting.
Troll poll. Meaningless questions. Didn’t bother.
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.
Mightn’t this qualify as ad hominem? Count me out.
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?
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!
@ur momisugly 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?)
skunky says:
August 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“Any survival tips?”
Don’t have ice cubes in your drinks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My pleasure to help Richard Tol in whatever his endeavor is intended to demonstrate.
I think… 🙂
Wow, that’s some of the worst poll boting I’ve ever seen. It’s like they weren’t even trying to hide it.
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… 🙂
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.
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.
I think the word “trustworthy” might have been a better word for the poll.
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. 🙂
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
Re: Hacking.
What’s P. Gleick up to these days?
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.
seems who ever botted the poll keeps coming back again.
I don’t get it.
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.