Survey: Research on climate blogs

Scientists in several fields such as sociology, psychology and anthropology have increasingly turned to the internet. Blogs and social media carry rich information from authors and commenters on these platforms. It is believed studies on comments and posts on these venues can provide insight.

This brief survey inquires about your attitudes toward research conducted on comments posted in climate-related blogs.

Please click here to take the survey.

No personal information is collected. Results will be posted here after completion of the survey.

UPDATE (May 9, 2014): The survey is now closed.




  • Took the survey. However, I feel you’re missing one question. Something to do with anonymity and attribution.

  • Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

    Does this have anything to do with the survey which Pointman recently wrote about?

  • Not really. This is a stand-alone survey.

  • It’s interesting that the people who are doing this don’t seem to have thought things through and come up with clear procedures, as recent shambolic events have painfully shown. There has been some stuff written on these questions, but I won’t post it yet so as not to influence your survey results.

    One question that you could have included is something like ‘it would be acceptable for researchers to use my comments in their research if they get my permission first’.

  • John M Reynolds

    You may get some false positives to your question about categorization of the surveyee’s viewpoint. I consider myself a skeptic though all scientists should be skeptics. If you mean that skeptic is someone who thinks that the warmists are willfully committing fraud, then most of the skeptics that would self classify as skeptics would more closely match your lukewarmer’s category.

  • John, where did you get the idea I think a skeptic is someone who thinks ‘warmists’ are wilfully committing fraud?

  • I can’t complete it. In my personal philosophy there is no such thing as “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. I’m not a determiner of what is or is not acceptable or moral.

    Different language like “contributes to greater elucidation” would be better.

  • Heh. Forget that last comment of mine. I can answer it as-is but since I dont think anything is unacceptable in a moral sense my answers will reflect that.

  • I remember you having only three classifications. I remembered skeptic and lukewarmers, but not the third, so I subbed in the word warmists. Too many people in the blogs and elsewhere use skeptic as the extreme classification, but most AGW skeptics are not extreme at all and barely differ from lukewarmers if at all. As you included both, it seemed that you were suggesting that skeptics are much more extreme than they really are.

  • I see your point. It doesn’t matter for the survey though. All I want to know is “What do you see your self as?” We could have a philosophical discussion on the various positions people adopt but in the end you have to pick something and call it something.

  • Saren, your second comment puts it well. You are not being asked to arbitrate what’s acceptable or unacceptable about research on comments in general, just how you feel about the same about your own comments.

  • I comment under my own name and if someone wants to characterize my comments, diagnose me, call me rude names, they are welcome to.

    Why would I care; or, more precisely, if I did care I would fire up an alias and have done with it.

    Lew’s papers were bogus from the get go and the fact he projected his results onto people who did not consent tells us far more about his mental state than theirs.

    And I agree with the commentors on the position question: I disagree with the IPCC consensus and am a very tepid warmer. Along the lines of CO2 is a very weak GHG which has a tiny effect on global temp and which may be overwhelmed by any number of commonplace natural events….and that position was not available.

    But I am over it.