Survey says…

There’s a survey about attitudes toward science, economics, and global warming, among other things. You may wish to participate, here.

About these ads

55 responses to “Survey says…

  1. Qu. 2 of the above survey is as follows:

    “I support the free-market system, but not at the expense of the environmental quality”

    The respondent is asked if he/she agrees or disagrees with this statement.
    If the respondent disagrees it could mean:
    1. “I do not support the free-market system”
    or
    2. “I support the free-market system and don’t give a toss about environmental quality.”

    I got as far as question 2. and decided not to continue.

  2. Rattus Norvegicus

    You missed the long series of questions about various conspiracy theories. Those were fun!

  3. Oh, but you missed some really great questions!

    7. “A powerful and secretive group, known as the New World Order, are planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments”

    Not so secret. Used to dance to them in the 80s.

    The survey leads leads to an ad. Not even any info on my IQ. But I know that I did really well.

  4. Anyone know of a survey with attitudes toward surveys?

    Horatio would like to answer that one.

  5. I guess they’re trying to use those survey questions to identify the nuts haha… All those conspiracy ones were a bit ridiculous (with the exception of iraq not being for WMDs, which is pretty obvious) although I do have to say the JFK lone gunman one is the only one i’m a little unsure about.

    What’s the survey being used for?

  6. I loved the question: “Out of 100 Climate Scientists, how many do you think would agree that human Carbon Dioxide causes global warming?”

    I put 97, of course ;)

  7. Slioch…
    It is a simple question.
    It isn’t asking if you support, or do not support the free market system.
    It is asking if you support, or do not support an environmentally reponsible free market.

  8. Where can one see the results?

  9. TomG, what if I can neither support nor not support an environmentally reponsible free market?

    And such a thing could be non-existent. In that case, as a logician I would support as well as not support any conceivable assertion about it.

  10. They missed a good question:

    An “environmentally responsible free market”
    a) is an oxymoron
    b) is a tautology
    c) would be a good idea
    d) requires an honest broker

  11. The problem with terms such as “free market” and “free trade” is that they mean different things to different people.

    If the playing field were level, then the ideals of free market philosophy would actual make quite a compelling argument. But when you look at reality, it’s just one big steaming pile of hypocrisy and greed.

  12. Sometimes the simple things escape me.
    I support a free market system, but (and that’s a big but…) not without honest, responsible to the public, government regulations and supervision.
    The free market has proved in the past and present to have many bad apples that are not responsible, enviromentally or otherwise.
    But if there is government oversight…that’s not a free market.
    I now understand the problem with that question.

  13. what is “social justice”?

  14. They didn’t ask if I supported dissolution of the global corporations.
    Nor if their disbandment would improve our chances of effectively dealing with climate change and improving the human conditon.
    So I guess it must be obvious already.

  15. I agree with the comments regarding the survey’s questions on free markets. My guess is that whoever designed this questionnaire doesn’t really understand the value added due to the work of individuals and organizations, and how that value is created.

    The first basic question should be: Should economic, political, and social systems be designed to promote free markets, or free enterprise?

    I assert that the two aims are not the same, and in fact and in practice, it turns out that the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot engender and promote the creative force of free enterprise in a “free market”; you need well regulated markets.

  16. Yah, and all things being equal, no one in their right mind would then willingly submit themselves to the conditions necessary to create the individual collection of capital (i.e., giving up the power to control one’s destiny (to the extent that one’s destiny can be controlled)). Of course, things aren’t equal–the weight of history pushes relentlessly (the very force that denialists are unable to resist: “it’s ok, things will be ok; the universe, like the free market, is tuned to our needs, and if God doesn’t save us, technology will. Just don’t ask me to sacrifice anything. We have done no wrong. We can do no wrong.”).

    I do agree, though, that the wording could have been a little more precise, and they could have included Tom Stoppard’s England conspiracy:
    Rosencrantz: I don’t believe in it anyway.
    Guildenstern: What?
    Rosencrantz: England.
    Guildenstern: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?

  17. These surveys are designed for an outcome, which as was apparent from the reply in first post, and thus in this case for either entertainment or wind-up, or a learning point on who ordered the survey for correct slotting. They’re so transparent.

  18. That was fun! I’m sure they loved my answers, as I try to judge every conspiracy theory on its own merits. Which probably makes me look a bit inconsistent.

    I’m sure 9/11 could have been stopped if the right people had wanted to. There are some pretty legitimate questions surrounding this conspiracy theory that have been shoved under the rug. For instance:

    How did those Arabs know of all those simultaneous military operations that day, some of which were about planes being hijacked? What a coincidence!

    Why was the media told within days exactly how many and which terrorists were involved? Have you ever seen that happen in a murder case?

    How could a pilot with as little experience as that terrorist make that incredibly difficult manoeuvre that was performed to fly into the Pentagon?

    Why weren’t people demoted or fired?

    Same with JFK and Pearl Harbour and Bay of Tonkin: lots of legitimate questions. I’ve never investigated HIV/AIDS for myself, or SARS. Probably bogus theories, like the one about the moon landing. Lots of bullshit theories surrounding UFOs as well, but I know a few people who have seen them, so I’m not closing my mind entirely on that one. The death of Princess Diana is weird too on the face of it. With regards to NWO: evil could be organised (but needs a strong occult component to be possible) or is just the total sum of human systems, and thus random.

    But either way, I’m pretty darn sure AGW is happening. And I’m also very sure that the economic concept of infinite, exponential growth is the big driver (whether markets are free or not) behind it and many other global problems, from top soil erosion to financial bubbles, from resource wars to the killing of the oceans.

    If you want to go all out conspiracy nutty, you could argument that the NWO/illuminati/reptilians/whatever have planned for AGW to happen (by making people addicted to what the economic concept of infinite, exponential growth brings in the short term) so that human population gets reduced to 300-500 million. There is no amount of state police and RFID chips that can take care of that for you as well as AGW and all the other genocidal factors that our current economic system is working towards. Now that’s what I call a great conspiracy theory!

    I sometimes try to convince conspiracy theorists over at Alex Jones’ or David Icke’s site of this, but to no avail. They rather listen to the invisible propaganda of the groups they think they are going to fight and beat. It’s sad and funny at the same time. Maybe I should give it another try when I have some time.

  19. Tried to take that one, but alas, no, greenhouse effect is not a matter of belief. Quit on 22th. True the conspiracies section was funny.

  20. In my mind, the “free market” questions at the beginning served exactly the same purpose as the “conspiracy theory” ones – they are designed to determine whether you belong to a ‘group’ that is strongly ideologically opposed to the whole climate change shebang. It lets them pick out the respondents who disagree with climate change because they’re unconvinced by the evidence (if such a group exists).

    The kind of people who say “the free market is always right” are also the kind of people who are likely to say “climate change is a hoax designed to secure grant funding for climate researchers – I know because [Fox News / conservative bloggers & radio jocks / the big coal & oil companies] told me so”.

  21. It is a seriously weird questionnaire. I stopped doing it when I realized that the UWA logo directed one to the kwiksurveys site rather than UWA. Is it some sort of attempt to spish? Quite apart from the inept conspiracy questions that don’t allow “no idea” as an answer.

  22. Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids?

    Also, here are two words that, when put together, ought to make anyone critical of this research: “online” and “survey”.

  23. John Whitman

    Tamino,

    I find the survey suspended in an intellectual no-where-land. Without broader context then the environmental dialog is irrelevant. Context is what is needed first.

    Necessary context is like the following. What is the basis of a free society and associated political system? Questions that can only be answered by responses to prior questions, namely, what is man’s nature and what code of conduct (ethics) is required by his nature? And the answer to man’s nature and ethics questions can only be made by answers to prior questions about what “is” (reality) and “how does man know it (epistemology)”.

    Preceding the above series of inquiries, of course, is the prerequisite for a human being in a position to think freely without coercion and to speak openly without fear. That is the most difficult step; being in a position to think freely and speak openly without coercion . . . . . it is rare in human history.

    John

  24. Sekerob — “These surveys are designed for an outcome, which as was apparent from the reply in first post, and thus in this case for either entertainment or wind-up, or a learning point on who ordered the survey for correct slotting. They’re so transparent.”

    Simple. If you don’t agree with the statement in the question you just answer “Strongly disagree”. I don’t see what the problem is.

  25. Antiquated Tory

    Well, one person in my (outermost) circle of acquaintances is convinced that global warming is a hoax perpetrated on behalf of the military as part of their plan to take everything over. She’s also a believer in New World Order conspiracy, FEMA “death camps” (a subset of NWO conspiracy), “chem trails,” and Obamacare death panels/health rationing. She probably believes in every single conspiracy in that survey, along with others they’ve never heard of.

    • @ Antiquated Tory

      Probably no worse in the general scheme of things to those thinking all the world’s climatologists are in a great conspiracy to ….um…. get grants, which as everybody “knows” is the one surefire way to get rich.

  26. stevegoddard at WUWT in his “GISStimating 1998″ post of the 29th finds that 1998 has been adjusted downward in GISTEMP since Hansen et al 1999. Stevegoddard claims “By demoting 1998, they are now able to show a continuous warming trend from 1975 to the present – which RSS, UAH and Had Crut do not show.”

    Except it’s wrong. 1998 has been adjusted upwards since 1999. Goddard’s error is that the graph he uses from Hansen 1999 is GISTEMP meteorological stations, whereas the graph of current GISTEMP he compares it with is land+ocean.

    • Those pesky details. . . of course poor SG doesn’t do so wonderfully with the big picture, either.

    • Rattus Norvegicus

      Good catch. I don’t usually read his posts with a fine tooth comb, figuring that something is seriously wrong with them in the first place. My initial guess of this was that the 2007 corrections plus this years change to using nightlights for all stations might have contributed to the change. I had no idea he would be so stupid.

    • Rattus Norvegicus

      Just pointed out the problem over at WUWT. We’ll see if it gets through.

      • It got through, was denied by SG, then I pointed out that the reference he quoted actually proved you that were correct. Mosh dissolved into hysterics. :-) No response from SG yet.

  27. I’m afraid that those of you who thought those conspiracy questions were transparent haven’t been paying attention. There are some s.e.r.i.o.u.s.l.y. weird collections of ideas in a lot of heads.

    Not just headdesk, facepalm, annoying loony stuff, but shriekingly hilarious – and I do mean shriek. Once had to get himself to massage my back to quiet the muscles cramped in agony from one of these encounters of the omigod kind.

  28. Phil.

    As I am sure you are aware, Anthony shut down comments – so it would be pretty difficult for me to respond.

    However, it does appear that the 1999 “global graph” probably excluded the 70% of the globe which comprises the oceans, so the basis of my article was most likely incorrect.

    • Thanks for correcting yourself. At least you can be quoted the next time it’s thrown out in comments elsewhere (and it is, a lot).

  29. Funny that you admit your error away from WUWT where it can be seen that your method was flawed. You should ask for the title to show it was mistaken or to add in a note.

  30. Steven Goddard,
    No, it’s not the mislabeled graph. Guess again.

  31. > stoopid
    Note, he doesn’t point to the paper, just a picture without context. Did he read the paper?

    Search for Hansen 1999. First hit is:

    GISS analysis of surface temperature change
    J Hansen, R Ruedy, J Glascoe, M Sato
    – Journal of Geophysical Research, 1999 – agu.org
    We describe the current GISS analysis of surface temperature change for the period 1880–1999 based primarily on meteorological station measurements.

    How could he miss that? It’s the first sentence of the paper.
    Did he just get the picture second hand and not bother to check it?

    Yeah, yeah, it’s someone else’s fault. We hear that a lot.

  32. “I wrote it up on my blog.”

    Well, whoopy doo.

  33. Speaking of Goddard errors, his “triple point” meltdown in WUWT has been most amusing.

    http://tinyurl.com/34lhhcc

    • Adam- indeed. Somehow I had missed it, thanks for mentioning it.

      Gotta give Anthony a notch on the cred post though (just one).

  34. Gator’s response on Goddard’s new blog nails it (copying here because at some point Steven Stoopid might learn how to delete posts …)

    “It’s not Hansen’s fault you’re stoopid. It’s the fact that you are promoting the idea that these scientists are in fact frauds. You look for conspiracy where there is none — that’s what makes you stoopid.”

  35. Speaking of Goddard errors, his “triple point” meltdown in WUWT has been most amusing.

    Well, at least it offered Watts the chance to throw him under the bus, after lots of instigation of Steven Mosher I’m sure. It was a case of Stevicide. I’m sure Goddard served his purpose well for WUWT (lots of hits, truth not so much).

  36. Eli Tesecular PhD

    Ridiculously easy test! I’m certain I got 100%. Where can I find the answer key?

  37. Classic quote from Goddard in that WUWT link :

    As I stated in my last post, it is impossible to create a perfect triple point equilibrium condition, so we scientists deal with the real world instead.

    Who’s this ‘we’ ?
    What’s his definition of ‘the real world’ ?

  38. What’s [Goddard's] definition of ‘the real world’ ?

    I believe we have seen that in appalling detail in WUWT recently.

  39. “Real world” is probably the one described by “Real Science” – which is his blog’s title. Is it different from the “New Science” often cited on wuwt?

    I’m pretty sure that “Steve Goddard” will prove again, in every post, that he’s so goood about writing high-grade BS (of course I mean ).

  40. The “GISTEMP has changed” argument was originally made 6 months ago on a series of blogs so this isn’t new. There are some overlay comparisons between temperature graphs from various Hansen papers in the following link that show GISTEMP’s record has not significantly changed since 1980. The blog is no longer active, I don’t have time to blog anymore and evidentially blogging about the error 6 month ago didn’t help prevent it happening again anyway.
    http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/03/gistemp-attacked-again.html

  41. As much as I’m going to miss Goddard’s posts and subsequent comments on WUWT, I think this guy “Paul Vaughan” has real potential to be an even better entertainment value. He has an inane post up about some correlation he claims to see between the time rate of change of the solar cycle and northern Pacific SSTs. The whole idea is idiotic, but to top it off he gives no details, says the lack of details is intentional, answers questions with an aloof, pompous air of superiority, and is evasive to the point that I’m beginning to think he’s a Poe. Of course, Lucy Skywalker and David Archibald accepted it without question.

  42. I support the free-market system, but not at the expense of the environmental quality

  43. Completely OT but I’d be interested in an expert analysis of the OHC data and whether the noise in the data allows Pielke senior to legitimately claim on Skeptical Science that taking “snapshots” from the data allows definitive statements on short term heat balance.

    Any chance of a post on this, Tamino ?