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…
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
Looks like my left, equal sign, right symbols didn’t make it.
Another try.
Objectivity <⩵⩵> Subjectivity <⩵⩵> Tol Poll <⩵⩵ faith ⩵ fantasy ∞ Lewpy & Cook Polls
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
@ur momisugly Matthew W (4:43AM, 8/3/13) — LOL.
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.
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.
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?
.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
#[:)]
See this example about how polls should be done:
Yes, Prime Minister fans will already have seen it!
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
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.
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?
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!!!)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Steve McIntyre and Dana Nuccitelli changed position in the poll. Right now Dana is happy about 79% friendly-votes:>((
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
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.
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.