Monday
Jan202014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A survey
Jan 20, 2014 Climate: Sceptics The Scottish Climate and Energy Forum is doing a survey of global warming sceptics and would appreciate the input of BH readers.
Take part here.
Reader Comments (30)
Done...
Me too.
Moi, aussi
Done and dusted.
with childhood in US, survey asked which state, and then the choices showed the state capitols. odd.
Done
Oops - forgot to dust!
Looked a bit like Lewendowsky, only dressed up better. I hope the analysis isn't as pea-brained. By the way, I typed "something random" per instructions - wonder if this will get me kicked out as a robot?
Not sure they're going to like my answers...
Done
Sherlock1
Surely that's what surveys are about, there are no right answers just answers. It would be good if Entropic and Chandra did it and answered truthfully, as I'm sure they would, if they haven't already.
MikeP - I think we all typed "something random" - a robot wouldn't have got the joke.
Completed. I thought the survey was well designed on the whole. Obviously much depends on the analysis. I would have added a more explicit question dealing with familiarity with statistics and data analysis. The question about the flu epidemics was a bit odd, since the time frame for action of flu and the phenomenon itself are more time sensitive than climate.
Is the same survey being posted on any of the AGW blogs?
Done
Done, but the question they should have asked is: "Are you a dissentient afflicted by the malady of thought?".
I am a tad concerned that the authors of this survey are gathering data to support the conclusion: "Haha! See what manner of person we're dealing with here? A disaffected fringe." If, however, it concludes that BH participants are immune to groupthink and base their positions on evidence, well I'll be happy.
I did it this morning - see my 9:40 AM post on Unthreaded. When I followed the Bish's link above, I found I could do it again. Shurely shome mistake.
Since every honest person, sceptic and fanatic alike, should agree to the questions "over the 20th century, there was warming of global average temperatures", and " man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2", the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum will likely conclude (thanks to this sneaky questionnaire) that "Most people believe the earth is warming because of man-made emissions of CO2". The fact that the rate of warming has been no different from that of previous periods, and that man's contribution of CO2 is very small compared to natural emissions will be conveniently glossed over by SCEF.
Heheheheh............
Mea Culpa. I posted my previous comment before discovering just who Scottish Climate and Energy Forum were, having jumped to the conclusion that they were yet another pressure group of AGW-pushers (there are so many of them infesting our lives). I now find the SCEF to be honest and honourable seekers after truth, and withdraw my previous remarks. I will now complete their questionnaire!
In the final box "any other comments" I asked 'is the answer 97%'? Wonder if they have a sense of humour?
dunned.
a robot wouldn't have got the joke.
Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM steveta_uk
69773244238353007891591399857580397665740641610
hee hee
Bernie1815,
I was troubled by the flu epidemic question. I don't distinguish authority by source but more by the support for the assertion. I generally doubt statements in the press which commence with "Scientists report ..." unless there is enough information to get some grasp of how they reached the basis for their report. Since newspapers seldom provide this level of detail, nor do some of the doctors i know, nor do government scientists (unfortunately as reported in the press), I have no way of ranking sources. How could anyone? I think it was an ill-formed question.
jferguson:
Yes and no. The options are pretty broad. If you replace "Flu" with "Climate" how would we answer?
Agree the flu question was poorly framed. Do they mean a flu epidemic in your local area, or somewhere in your country, or in another country, or what? Anyway, newspapers come last in all scenarios, IMO!
As for the questions about CO2 and warming, if people answered honestly, it might provide some ammunition against the "all sceptics are deniers" meme which gets thrown around indiscriminately to discredit everyone who is not a CAGW doomsayer.
Mir auch!
Bernie1815 & Johanna,
If I've misconstrued how the flu question was framed, I apologize for wasting your time, but....
i suspect that trusting a source is like pregnancy; binary. You either trust the source or you don't. If this is reasonable, then it would be hard to rank sources. there would be two groups, trusted and untrusted.
I think this might be my problem with that survey question.
I think it would have been good to try & find the reason for the response to Read Climate blogs (both types).
I gave up on the AGW ones because of the censorship & refusal to discuss facts.
I stay with Skeptic blogs as they seem to welcome disent (even tolerating some of the more extreme AGW types)
I suspect the flu question is merely trying to asses how we react to 'argument from authority' - I suspect a strong corelation between reading AGW blogs & accepting govt./newspaper reports of flu and an inverse corelation for skeptics !
jferguson - my point is that if my local GP tells me that there is a flu epidemic in my community, I trust him. If he tells me (based on an unknown outside source) that there is one in The Congo, not so much, although it it still more believable than anything published in a newspaper.
It was difficult to answer that question because "government health authorities" have been known (Mad Cow Disease, cough cough) to beat up or misrepresent data just as badly as the Daily Mail at its worst.
I would trust almost anyone who told me there was a flu epidemic. I wouldn't examine the question more closely until they tried to persuade me that it would probably kill me unless I bought expensive health insurance.