John Cook asked me to post this survey.
Hi Steve
As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web, I’m seeking your assistance in conducting a crowd-sourced online survey of peer-reviewed climate research. I have compiled a database of around 12,000 papers listed in the ‘Web Of Science’ between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. I am now inviting readers from a diverse range of climate blogs to peruse the abstracts of these climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. If you’re interested in having your readers participate in this survey, please post the following link to the survey:
http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=1OBJM2FVTG68
The survey involves rating 10 randomly selected abstracts and is expected to take 15 minutes. Participants may sign up to receive the final results of the survey (de-individuated so no individual’s data will be published). No other personal information is required (and email is optional). Participants may elect to discontinue the survey at any point and results are only recorded if the survey is completed. Participant ratings are confidential and all data will be de-individuated in the final results so no individual ratings will be published.
The analysis is being conducted by the University of Queensland in collaboration with contributing authors of the website Skeptical Science. The research project is headed by John Cook, research fellow in climate communication for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
……………..
Regards,
John Cook
University of Queensland/Skeptical Science
Yeah ok and wasn’t there a warmist here that went by the name of “Whatever” err something! 😆
So did he part ways with his toilet friend and now looking fer a new spin!
Really. So now he’s trying to figure out if some sort of consensus might actually exist! Randomly selected from 12,000 papers – yeah right.
This guy gets paid for doing this junk?
Pretty much! 😆
There should be a big fat no thanks, you reputation is in tatters and we see no reason to engage with your type of manipulated outcomes.
I am curious to see the other shoe drop.
I guess your 2 mentions on Drudge vaulted you to his notice!
It brought it to his attention that he was more than likely not wanting to engage, if you ask Me. So Yep!
Ignore it.
Fool me once and all that… Giving these charlatans the time of day is like asking a fox to guard the hen house while you go on a weekend trip.
Pretty much!
1 Across: GO AWAY!!!!! (Slang – Two words (4,3))
Cook’s survey will generate no useful scientific data. This is no way to do science.
Cook, Nuccitelli and Lewandowsky are the three biggest unqualified cranks in the media’s eye. So I’m betting Steve is not falling over backwards to assist.
Or you can take the one on Skeptical Science here:
http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=1R9YT8YMZTWF
I am certain it makes no difference which one you take.
Pretty much!
We can say, with rock-solid >95% confidence, that this survey will confirm 100% of what Cook wants it to say. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.”
You have one junk science field (psychology) used in defence of another junk science field (climate science). It’s all about solidarity.
On the face of it, this might have been an interesting survey. Unfortunately, Cook and his sidekick Lewandowsky have a history of using similar “surveys” to attack and abuse those who take part in them, even to the extent of naming them and declaring them to be a “denier” or a “conspiracy theorist”. The previous two papers produced by Cook and Lewandowsky have been retracted for the above. There is no reason for anyone to suppose this one would be any different.
I won’t be participating.
Lew will publish a new paper showing skeptics refuse to cooperate
Reminds me of the Germans who refused to cooperate with the “Final Solution”.
WTF is “climate communication” ?
Oh, sorry, my two cents on the survey …. pppffffffttttttt…..
Not sure how many times, in how many ways that I have to say “I don’t give a rats ass about any freaking ‘consensus'”.
“Consensus” isn’t keeping my house warm this spring.
Agree with those above- John Cook has no scientific qualifications, he is a psychologist who needs psychological help from someone who knows more than Freud’s Oedipus complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex) or Jung’s theories..
No one should complete the survey and give him any reason to stroke his ego or phallic imagination
I thought i had read somewhere that he had a degree in Physics.
Of course so does Scooter.
My immediate thought: What are they up to?
Watch out! Look how they got the “consensus” in the first place. I don’t trust any of ’em.
The survey only looks at the abstracts. Over the years of following the agw debate, I have seen a number of posts on papers that disprove a part of the warmist argument but which still follow the warmist mantra in their abstracts. While this survey may achieve the 95% consensus that Cook is obviously trying to prove, it will do nothing to show the real state of the science.
So, I took the survey out of morbid curiosity. I rated all but two as explicitly endorsing AGW without quantification or minimization. The other two were a neutral (no abstract provided) and one being a definite endorsement.
When I submitted my results, however, I was informed that my ratings summary was 1 endorsement, 7 refutations of AGW, and one neutral. WTF???? I guess data tampering knows no bounds :/
Anyone who discusses consensus regarding the science of climate, should be ignored, if not ridiculed.
Steve, you should’ve asked him for the survey’s results: I’m sure they’re already written.
Ok so you made up a bogus survey that was then dressed up with misleading information to make me look like I think the moon landing is fake and other stupid ideas. And now you want me to take another of your surveys and expect me to trust the use to which you will put my opinions.
Do you actually want me to explain where I would like you to shove your survey or do you want to just use your imagination?
The issue I see with the survey is we are asked to rate the abstract text. “Your rating should be based on the abstract text.”. Our responses are compared to the author’s rating of their papers. As SM says – you have to watch the pea. The rating scale is 1-7 with 1 being global warming is more than 50% anthropogenic and 4 neutral. So I rated my abstracts at 3.4 whereas the authors rated their corresponding papers at 2.6.
Now if I had rated my abstracts on what I suspected the paper said, I would have gotten closer to the 2.6. If they do a good job on processing the submissions, it will be an interesting look at how readers from skeptic verses alarmist sites analyze the abstracts.
Anyone thinking about doing the survey should read WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/john-cooks-new-survey-lots-of-questions-no-answers/
and the Blackboard:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/dear-john-i-have-questions/
first….. 😉
1OBJM2FVTG68 is the number of the beast *guitar solo goes here*
The solo from Deliverance if I’m not mistaken. Would you want Lew canoeing behind you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE
It is refreshing that nearly everyone knows who he and Dana are and knows of the low ground on which they walk. What is sad is the continual erosion of integrity they and some others bring to the scientific community,