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…
@ur momisugly 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.
Hacked? Who woulda thunk it..? 🙂
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.
“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.
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.
worried about climate policy – a 97% consensus!
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!
“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
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.
Nigel Harris says:
—
nigel, I guess you missed the articles about solar flares, Arctic volcanoes, sea-level studies…
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?”
There’s only one T Pol I’m interested in.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070102045653/memoryalpha/pl/images/b/b0/T%27Pol1.jpg
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
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
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.
Wait, you mean to tell me that climate changers need to rig voting outcomes ?
Finally a correlation supported by causation!
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!
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.
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.
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.
I can see it is coming along nicely.
97% would be my guess!
Um, so there was no hack, just a bot?? OH! That makes me feel MUCH better about the survey! Let Science(tm) continue!
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
Stephen Richards says: @ur momisugly 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.
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!