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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Lion says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:05 pm
> Judging by the responses, it would appear there are a lot of engineers about, and we like our science BS-free.
No sh*t, Big Cat! 🙂
Yeah, destined for “moderation”
[So, “moderation” yourself. Mod]
Ric Werme said @ur momisugly January 22, 2014 at 6:38 pm
My paternal aunt and Jessica Mitford were members of the Communist Party in the US. Either Jim has a numeracy problem, or he doesn’t know about the Republican and Democrat Parties 🙂
I’m fessing, “Something random, or maybe not”.
I finished the poll but: This poll is not directed at establishing your opinion about AGW.
It’s all about profiling and if you’re lucky the outcome won’t be used against you.
In other words, I smell a rat.
I was somewhat surprised to find that my occupational category (“Other”) is the third largest.
As “something random,” I decided to type literally the first thing that crossed my mind (in line with Freudian associative BS games): “There are no worse enemies than uninvited friends.”
For my random typing I put.
Hello Mum
Now what does that say about me?
James Bull
Typed “something random” and then something random.
M Courtney says:
January 22, 2014 at 2:55 pm
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.
==================================
Try being a West Ham fan, especially following the events of January 5 🙁
Typed “You can’t always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream.”
@leeHarvey
Me. 🙂
I did too.
It did bother me that there was “strongly” agree or disagree for some of these questions. It implies “belief” – a form of intuition that mars scientific enterprise. i merely agree or disagree on the balance of evidence of which I am aware, or am too uncertain to say one way or another. If I were to “strongly” agree with the proposition that things will fall toward the earth due to gravity acting upon it, wouldn’t that seem strange? I could “strongly” agree with an economic argument regarding the minimum wage (for example) because I may place value judgements on the merit of social impacts low-paid workers over market forces or something like that, or I could strongly agree that it is better die by a bullet than by sarin gas, but not that there is a physical consequence of dropping a ball, or of radiative properties of CO2, because these are testable or measurable.
If you have seen evidence that contradicts mine then you disagree, but not “strongly” – you just objectively note that the evidence you have assimilated does not concur.
i hope I explained my point ok…..
I filled this out on the Bishop Hill site. Now waiting to see the results.
The aim is clear. The results should prove interesting.
@cynical_scientist
Agree with your comment on the flu epidemic question. I actually took the opposite approach interpreting trustworthiness to refer to honesty rather than correctness, which probably resulted in inverted answers. Thus, my own data would (by definition) be absolutely trustworthy to me (I would know if I were actually lying), but I wouldn’t assume it would be the most correct (I would truthfully analyze the data in an incompetent fashion), and, as you noted, while I would rank scientific papers fairly high (well, high relative to newspapers) I doubt I’d ever realistically look to them for news about a new epidemic.
I think I got all the answers wrong. I should do it again.
@Mr. Green Genes –
That is spectacular. Almost brings a tear to my eye.
cynical_scientist says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:59 pm
“I didn’t like the question about attitudes to difference sources of news on a flu epidemic. I think this question may be used to infer all sorts of general things about my attitudes to authoritative sources of information that are not actually true.”
Yeah, I omitted this question for similar reasons.
Jim Carson says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:20 pm
“… and political parties (we only have two, and large numbers of us despise them both).”
How true!!!! I wonder when the party leaders will cotton on to this very clear fact.
When/where will the results be published?
Over 50% of the test participants are engineers and scientists.
Paul Westhaver said @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 10:51 am
Over 50% of the test participants
areclaim to be engineers and scientists.Fixed.
The web page expired before I could complete the survey. Stupid web design in that regard.
http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/524582/lang/en
My random statement was “I Like WUWT”
@LeeHarvey; Instead of literally typing “something random” I went with “What would you like me to type?”
@Mr.. Green Genes wins hands down I do believe!
@Scottish Sceptic says: January 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Come now, Scottish Sceptic, you’ve gotta pass on some of the ones that you thought were the best/funniest!