Lewandowsky was warned his survey was no good | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

More on the bizarre paper of Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, who claimed his survey showed warming sceptics were actually the kind of conspiracy nuts to believe even that NASA faked the moon landings.

We’ve already noted evidence strongly suggesting the credulous Lewandowsky was fed fake data by fake sceptics, thanks to a sloppily designed survey.

Now, as Steve McIntyre shows, Lewandowsky’s team was actually warned of this very weakness in his survey, yet decided to remove one method of preventing it being corrupted by frauds.

The man who warned them was Professor Roger Pielke Jr, who Lewandowsky’s team wrongly identified as a sceptic:

Pielke’s correspondence with (Lewandowsky colleague Charles) Hanich also sheds some interesting light on an important statement in Lewandowsky’s article on the handling of responses from the same IP address – an issue discussed by Lucia here, citing the following statement from the article:
Following standard recommendations (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004), duplicate responses from any IP number were eliminated (N = 71)…

Most people reading the above sentence from Lewandowsky’s article probably took this to mean that multiple responses from the same IP address were eliminated. But watch the pea in light of Pielke’s correspondence with Hanich.

On Sep 6, 2010, Hanich wrote as follows…:

I am seeking your assistance with a web-based survey of attitudes towards climate science (and other sciences) and skepticism.. I would greatly appreciate it if you could perhaps post the link below, which goes directly to the survey, on your blog, so that your readers could participate ….

… Pielke wrote back… :

Thanks. I am unclear about how posting on a blog helps your purposes, as you will get anonymous, perhaps repeated replies. I have seen various efforts to query opinions via online surveys fail to be methodologically rigorous, so that is the basis for my query…

A week later, Sept 13, Hanich replied:

You have raised a very valid point. We are aware of methodological issues, one of which is dealing with repeated replies.

When we published the surveys, we had two options:

a) Use the provision offered by the hosting company to block repeated replies using IP addresses. This, however, will block legitimate use of the same computer, such as in our laboratory, where numerous participants use the same PCs.

b) Not to block multiple replies and allow for the possibility of repeated replies when evaluating the data.

We chose option b), which was more practical in our situation…

Hanich’s justification for turning off the duplicate-IP function at kwiksurveys is to-say-the-least strained. My impression is that most skeptics operate from their own computers; missing a few skeptics who share a computer is a pretty small price….

So Lewandowsky went out of his way to accommodate multiple respondents from the same IP address by turning off this option at kwiksurveys…

My interpretation … is that Lewandowsky accepted multiple responses from the same IP address as long as there was a slight variation in any answer. For example, the answers from the two scam responses who agreed with every conspiracy were nearly identical, but varied on a couple of questions. As I interpret the methodology, because the two answers were not item-for-item identical, they would be accepted even if they came from the same IP address.

Junk in, junk out.

(Thanks to reader Craig.)

Lewandowsky was warned his survey was no good | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s