Mike Haseler (aka the Scottish Sceptic) has prepared a survey asking for professional and personal opinion on AGW, and he has asked that I carry it here (unlike Lewandowsky).
The rationale and link to the survey:
The aim of the survey is to understand the nature and background of those interested in the climate debate online. It will provide an invaluable insight into the education and work experience of participants, test the relevance of politics in forming views and assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
The link to the survey is:
I’ve taken the survey, it takes about 5 minutes and while there are a couple of confusing questions (which is something you’ll see in ANY survey), overall I think it is reasonably well done.
Note: if you start the survey, FINISH IT, otherwise it just creates more work to cull incomplete responses. Also, I have no connection to this survey in any way, I was simply asked to make a notice of it.
Thanks Mike Haseler (aka the Scottish Sceptic), I enjoyed answering your survey, this doesn’t happen often.
May you learn something, then share it.
My random typing, “That’s an odd one (-: ”
My comments, three in all:
1. Global Warming is NOT a problem.
2. Global Warming is political.
3. Sea level is being fudged by Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group.
The flu epidemic question was difficult except for rating Journalists dead last.
I hope everyone understands that President Obama’s Science advisor has said, “…what we can expect as a result of global warming is to see more of this pattern of extreme cold…”
See YouTube ID: (5eDTzV6a9F4)
xplod said @ur momisugly January 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm
That would be “immobile” rather than “random” methinks 🙂
[ducking and running]
I did this at Bishop Hill as well.
(That sounds as though I did it twice…..I mean, like MikeP I’ve already done it)
Re: the “random” question, what could be more random than “I follow Nottingham Forest” ?
That would be “immobile” rather than “random” methinks 🙂
[ducking and running]
Ha,ha,bloody ha! 😉 Well, someone has to !
I did NOT type “something random”. Instead I rambled.
Never mock Forest fans.
I know a few Forest fans who declared for Clough’s boys, when they were very young, out of an unadulterated lust for Glory.
Poor guys.
They have suffered much.
Actually I was a very great fan of Robin Hood as a boy and cajoled my parents into taking me to Nottingham. I was very much disappointed to discover that there was no forest, just another grimy midlands town like Nuneaton, but bigger.
LeeHarvey – it all depends on what you mean by “something random”…
Re. ‘Something random’ I typed, ”This is a fake response.” Not sure what will be made of this.
Something random..uh..State pen, not Penn State! Yeah, that’ll do.
LeeHarvey says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Fess up… who else typed “something random” in the screen at the end?
———————————————————————
This is a random entry.
Thanks everyone
Thank you everyone for contributing and the comments about the survey are very useful as they tell us how the survey questions have been interpreted, and yes, in a perfect world we would have asked more questions and/or had a different set.
However, unfortunately, until the survey is finished I cannot comment more as this might bias the results. However, there is one question which is not part of the survey:–
LeeHarvey “Fess up… who else typed “something random” in the screen at the end?”
One of the fun bits has been looking at these answers. The answers were not what we were expecting (but it does seem to be doing its job at detecting fake entries)
LeeHarvey says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm
> Fess up… who else typed “something random” in the screen at the end?
I did too, after all, I’m a software engineer. Had I known I would have been tested, I might have said “Check the ENSO meter, it’s -0.6, down from -0.5 last week. Perhaps a La Niña is coming.”
Done. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
So almost 60% of the respondents were in Science and Engineering. Skeptical bunch. But I do believe that is what they (we) were trained to be. [Murphy’s] Law is always just around the next corner. WJD, P. Eng.
Perhaps I’m just in a bad mood, but I was so annoyed by the ending “prove you’re real” questions, I threw away all my answers. Plus, the obviously British author should have checked with an American before finalizing questions on states (most of us don’t live in the capital) and political parties (we only have two, and large numbers of us despise them both).
Missed two key questions. There is a question on whether we think that CO2 will cause “catastrophic global warming” but not one where we are asked if it will cause any warming at all. SO I found myself strongly disagreeing with that question and strongly agreeing with all others points of the same group, and it looks like it is incompatible. But that’s only because there are questions missing.
Another important question missing is whether we think that the warming will bring bad consecuences or not. So I am suspecting that the goal is not to survey the skeptics positions but to try to associate them with some strange response given in any of the other unrelated topics. We will find out when we see the results and how they compare to any other control group.
Link us to the results when they are published. By the way, I did type something literally random — in so far as anyone can actually do that without a calculation of some sort.
Jim Carson says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Yeah, you’re in a bad mood. So it has an accent. I doubt I could do better with Mexican states, Canadian provinces, or Scottish umm, whatever you guys have.
I’m a member of the Libertarian Party. What’s the other Party you despise? 🙂
LeeHarvey says: January 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm : “Fess up… who else typed “something random” in the screen at the end?”
Well, that’s what the instructions said to do. [grin] But I also entered some gibberish after to get past the bot filter.
I’ve seen better surveys, but I’ve seen much worse*, too. Quality-wise, I’d rate the questions in the [top] 20th percentile. Analysis will be the interesting part, of course.
—
* Grad student was doing one on opinions of mining (allowable answers ranged from “bad” to “oh holy [—-] the world is ending!”) and regulation of same (answers: “need more” to “mining must be stopped before the [—-] world ends!”). I contacted the student to note that the survey carried… an implied bias [grin] and ignored a wide range of alternate views. His response was that his professor told him those other views didn’t count and had approved all his questions/responses. The phrasing made it clear that I was not the only person who had issues with his alleged methodology.
Edit: “top 20th percentile”.
“LeeHarvey says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm”
I used a “word” that was an answer to a poorly set out tabloid crossword puzzle that I still remember from the early 1980’s. I wish I can forget it as I’d like to remember something more useful.
Judging by the responses, it would appear there are a lot of engineers about, and we like our science BS-free.
LeeHarvey says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Fess up… who else typed “something random” in the screen at the end?
————–
The rebel that I am, typed “random”.
Isn’t that something.