Brandon Schollenberger writes:
As you’re aware, Stephan Lewandowsky has written several papers claiming to have found certain traits amongst global warming skeptics. I believe his methodology is fundamentally flawed. I believe a flaw present in his methodology is also present in the work of many others.
To test my belief, I’m seeking participants for a short survey (13 questions). The questions are designed specifically to test a key aspect of Lewandowsky’s methodology. The results won’t be published in any scientific journal, but I’ll do a writeup on them once the survey is closed and share it online.
The Poll follows.
Please feel free to participate and/or share the survey with anyone you’d like:
http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=jblyccj8lluam18284546
Note: the poll is just one page, and after submitting you’ll get a “make your own survey” ad page.
David L. Hagen, I intentionally refrained from being explicit with what that question asks. Surveys about views on global warming often use similarly vague language. I wanted to emulate that.
As for comparing this to Lewandowsky’s paper (actually papers), I discussed the major flaw you reference when his first paper was published. I think I was actually the first person to do so. In an amusing twist, I had commented several times on the page you linked to. It turned out Steve McIntyre and I had both, independently, contacted Michael Wood about the same general problem with his paper.
Anyway, my data is no more “real” than Stephan Lewandowsky’s. It is every bit as bad as his. That’s the point. The difference is I embrace the absurdity while he pretends it doesn’t exist. You can only publish results if you do the latter.
Stephen Richards, I’m not sure anyone has ever decided whether or not I’m a skeptic, and that includes me!
DirkH, I thought Lew is a social psychologist just like his former collegue, Diederik Stapel (presently a taxi driver).
Mike Tremblay says:
‘Lewandowski is guilty of the ‘Pot calling the kettle black’.’ That is spot on, and we have discussed that fact many times here.
In psychology it’s called “projection”. It means the person who is projecting is guilty of the very fault that he attempts to assign to others. In Lewandowski’s case, everything he labels scientific skeptics/realists with is his own personal fault.
That happens a lot with people who gravitate toward Psychology. Lewandowski will never get into a real debate with a credible scientific skeptic, because he would be ripped to shreds in short order. Taking pot shots from the safety of his ivory tower is all Lewandowski is doing.
Lewandowski will never go toe-to-toe with an adversary. He doesn’t have the stones.
Aliens erase you memory when they’re done molesting you. So if you said “yes,” your are wrong–and if you said “no,” all that means is that you may have had your memory erased.
I used to work with a Bigfoot at an airport. At least that’s what everybody called him. Never did meet his family but they might have been Bigfeet too.
Tom O asks an important question:
I originally intended to let my schedule be determined by the response rate. I expected I’d have to wait at least several days, if not weeks, to have enough data. I hadn’t anticipated the survey getting hosted at several big name blogs, and as such, I hadn’t anticipated how quickly I’d get enough data to publish results.
I could publish results now if I wanted to. I don’t. I want to give this survey a bit of time to run. I’d also like to have more time to write it up. You should expect the results to be published no sooner than Monday and no later than next Friday.
Hmm.. I was disapointed… heavily disapointed…
I happen to believe it is too early to tell which the reasons for the global warming might be in which weighting.. seems to me that one BS test was replaced with another BS test!
Such tests only tell you something about the person(s) making such test.. no science here
Nylo, I didn’t consider that. Good point!
Ted Clayton, aren’t polls basically just subsets of surveys? Regardless, I do get what you mean about the structure seeming odd. I had considered typing out each question in its entirety because of that. It seemed silly though. Why be that redundant?
By the way, part of the reason this survey may seem weird is it is supposed to be weird. My questions were appropriately grained for the matter of interest. Remember, I’m not looking for detailed information about people’s views on particular subjects.
OK S. says: 10:21 am
“used to work with a Bigfoot at an airport”
Did he say “GoonieGooGoo”?
The survey won’t load for me.
Questions answered. Great survey!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
For those who are scratching their heads!
Hey, this should set a PRECENDENT. Let’s give Diederik CREDIT he returned his Phd…
This should happen more often, when fraud is discovered.
Taxi driver? May be too high a position now.
Umm? Say what?
It is not possible to believe that gloobal warming is not real and yet have an opinion to express for part two: “humans are responsible for most global warming .” Your goal here is obvious, but this kind of thing forces me to ask whether you believe yourself responsible for shooting the hole in your foot.
What I will find much more interesting, is the various studies of the cognition of the strong Cagw advocates we will have in coming years. Somehow it is now anti science to question, or include all the data. Ive “debated” this with many. I have yet to do this with someone who didnt simply end the discussion when the data wasnt going their way, or simply resort to calling me names and similar things. Ive also known many who dismiss cagw for political reasons, and this is equally troubling, but there is no doubt some very interesting cognitive roadblocks in the minds of many believers.
Paul Murphy, I’m not sure what your concern is. If you disagree with the notion global warming is real, wouldn’t you disagree with the notion humans are causing most global warming? We can’t cause something which isn’t happening.
You left out the Drug War is run by the CIA.
Here is a great video clip, about how questions asked in an opinion poll can ‘shape’ the result. It is from a show called “Yes, Prime Minister”
philjourdan says:
“What if I had no mother? I call a petri dish mom. ;-)”
Then you must also agree with being abducted by aliens (:
@Mike Maguire – Did you peak at my answers? 😉
How can you guys answer no to the aliens question? Here in Canada we have it on record by a liberal former defense minister, Paul Hellyer, former defence minister of Canada, has claimed that aliens are not ready to share their technological expertise with earth people since they are disgusted with pollution and wars. He has also insisted that aliens do exist on earth. See! Told you so – which is why I now suspect liberals of being aliens hell bent on taking over the planet. And why the green agenda is in effect! We’re not going to get alien tech until the global warming folks win y’all!
Dang, I just wanted to mention…forgetting to ask about “getting signals from aliens” (Not from across the border…a border, just interstellar.) And then albertalad mentions the D.M. of Canada.
Someone always has the scoop! Good going Albertalad.
@Ken hall
Maybe that’ sthe point.
1) Post a survey in a place where a certain response is expected.
2) Describe it as a test of a divisive issue.
3) Wait for vandals to invade and supply a different expected response.
3) Compare initial results (from the expected audience) with later results (from immitators).
Pulse the request on different one-sided sites and watchh for signal and echo.
Its A-hole radar.
I found the question asking if global warming is bad to be a terrible question. *How MUCH* warming is at issue? It was not said. 2 deg C, perhaps good, 5 deg C probably bad.
Personally, I have seen lots of big foots. Mostly those of climate “scientists” inserted into their mouths. I assume that you meant the other sort.
bshollenberger asked @ur momisugly January 10, 2014 at 10:31 am;
Poll is Old English for “head”. The ‘head-count’ became the ballot, or vote.
Survey is Old French, combining “over” with “to see”. Investigate, or reconnoiter.
In a poll, we ‘pick’ from prepared choices. In a survey, we aim to ‘find out’ [we don’t know]. In the former, the choices are fixed; in the later, we don’t know beforehand what the possible ‘choices/answers’ might be.
Unfortunately, in modern (commercial, professional, institutional) “polling”, pollsters often indulge in what is really surveying. Many ‘national polls’ eg now include a lot of questions that serve to survey the populace. Originally, “polling” was just about tracking how upcoming elections etc might turn out … now, sophisticated surveying is done under the rubric of the poll.
However, science & scientists assuredly do still know the difference. We have eg the prominent “literature survey” study & paper … for which real grant funding is available. Peer reviewed survey papers & reports aim to extract new information by using a structured review (“survey”) of independently published sources in the existing literature.
Because the survey is formalized in science, the poll/survey difference will count, in anything aiming to be or address “science”.
[I haven’t followed the work of Stephan Lewandowsky (because I accepted the cues that it is bogus), which might-could be a problem.]
I used a dice. (Ignored the 6) on one of the times I did the survey.
First question – global warming is a real.
A real what? or should it be “global warming is real?”